Application of William L. Tenney, Paul A. Frank and Scoville E. Knox

United Government States obtained Marechal, Biebel B. Lawrence unpublished patent ap- access to the Dayton, Ohio, Bugg, Biebel, French & plications on file in the Reichs- appellants. patentamt, and recorded them along large microfilm, with a amount Washington, Moore, C.D. W. Clarence technical material. Schimmel, Washington, C., D. (J. “These microfilms were turned counsel), of Patents. for Com’r Officeof Technical over Serv- JOHNSON, Judge, Depart- United Chief ices States Before RICH, Eventually they O’CONNELL, WORLEY, ment Commerce. Library placed in the Judges. of Con- February 25, 1943. 138,004, Karcher, Application filed German Patent No. meaning “printed publication” within the of Technical Bibliography Office gress and the pub 102(b),2 of 35 U.S.C. § published the Services lishing bibliography, reports June date of said Industrial Scientific of concerning (a year more than one captured date data all filing date). appellants’ refer- The the of war. end the at substantia] urge of a prac- one Appellants here was ence due the pat- unpublished German locating impossibility of number tical of the micro- on applications photographed Congress, Library film file in the on of was reel This 83291. bibliography PB L Reel even after the O.T.S. was along Bibligraphy [sic] faulty the published (as in listed of in- a result the pho- were on which other reels dexing), with tographed the microfilm was not unpublished other various contemplation 102 within the of section fol- the applications under They argue (b), supra. German lowing that further the * * * designation: “printed.” microfilm was “ Reichspatentamt, 83291. ‘PBL Counsel for admit- the Commissioner applications during argument if oral the German ted that Berlin. Reel (FIAT Microfilm refer- microfilm is held not to be valid on aircraft. a 8522-9442) 1937- 134, (viz., printed publication) Frames ence all B —a Microfilm— n appeal Price: 942 f. claims on are allowable. 1945. the print Enlargement $120.00 $9.00 — — confronting us, The issue German.’ In microfilm, allegedly is whether is that there be noted “It should public only was made available to the by mate- the of identification bibliog- virtue of the beyond the reel the rial recorded single raphy, being there no evidence of rec- statement, quoted “Ger- above any copies ord that of said microfilm applications aircraft.” on man by any have been made or seen member the microfilm frames of The cited public, “printed publication” is aircraft. no relation have meaning within term as that used Bibliography 102(b). in 35 U.S.C. § is “It stated by or- copies could be obtained importance question The of this is at dering of Tech- from Office them once obvious. At first blush we had giving Services, appropriate nical thought might decision be in * * identification. number PB by prior fluenced decision of this court: faulty conceding board, Wilson, 422, v. 48 The Fessenden F.2d C.C.P.A., Patents, 1171, bibliography indexing certiorari denied of the O.T.S. 640, apt as U.S. to mislead S.Ct. 76 L.Ed. ques urged by microfilm in appel reel of This decision contents was analogous denying was no tion, lant as instant case. indicate that has been record to case cited on a number evidence Karcher document of occasions other courts well as as Office, standing on in the microfilm file as made from proposition Library appellants’ appearing prior to matter held, filing date, patent application originally filed, au nevertheless parte Brendlein, thority application of Ex 105 U.S. cancelled before the issued patent, no P.Q. (Bd.Appls.1955), printed that the does as a not constitute a availability publication. Tampax, Inc., Personal tice Corp., bibliography D.C.E.D.N.Y.1941, the microfilm in Products O.T.S. question F. Supp. 663; Halberg, said microfilm (dis- Gulliksen constitutes opinion expressly rejects import possible board’s decision board’s se, per bibliography virtue reliance on the O.T.S. microfilm availability, notice of is the such. the O.T.S. upon; relied U.S.P.Q. 252, senting We have no other decisions opinion) found instant this court which bear on the (Bd.Appls.1937). examined We have question. granting but, before us is there- carefully The issue case Fessenden fore, least as far as this court language somewhat used therein concerned, impression. one of first misleading, the case feel that do not we proposition attributed stands carefully We have most of considered appellant’s There, in answer to reports to it. the countless cases description argument question cancelled what or is appellant’s application, filed June publication. ex- conflicts Irreconcilable May issuing patent on holdings ist a number as between the appellees 1918, from to bar was sufficient of them and few forth sufficient have set they ground patent that reasoning .a any to us. be of assistance inventors, [18 said reaching the court not the first In our conclusion we of neces- 1171, 48 F.2d 425]: sity disagree C.C.P.A. Patents must with at least several of these cases. “* * * authorizes The statute may, opinion Be this as it we are of the granting patent under cer of a that the microfilm in instant case invention conditions if the tain is not a within in this or used others ‘not known contemplation 102(b) of 35 U.S.C. § country, or dis his invention before therefore, the decision covery thereof, patented or specifical- board must reversed. More publica any printed., described ly, opinion we are of the the micro- foreign country. in this or tion “printed.”4 film is not * * * ' In United States v. Dubilier Condens- filing reasons, “For obvious Corp., 1933, 178, 186, er 289 U.S. 53 description application, an 554, 557, 1114, S.Ct. L.Ed. 77 the Su- it results canceled which is before preme Court, through speaking Mr. Jus- public patent comes in a or Roberts, tice stated: notice, de not such a “Though characterized, often so with scription as is of the- invention patent not, accurately speaking, statute. inhibition monopoly, is not created Davis- v. Milburn Co. Alexander authority the ex- executive at Co., supra.”3 Bournonville pense prejudice and to the of all the obvious, from the court’s is rather community grantee except the says (which Milburn case Seymour citation patent. Osborne, v. 11 n (cid:127)nothing publications) 516, 533, Wall. 20 L.Ed. 33. The patented urged appellant that the had not ‘monopoly’ giving term connotes the containing con- the cancelled matter privilege buying, of an exclusive file publication, had nór selling, working using thing stituted a or Appellant was in mind. public enjoyed the court freely which the urging grant. that all matter contained monop- Thus a application as filed constituted oly something in an people. takes from the granting to bar the sufficient deprives disclosure An inventor well known rule of nothing under the enjoyed which it before his case, which now has been Milburn gives discovery, something but 102(e). U.S.C. into 35 community codified by adding value to the 324, 390, 1926, 3. 46 S.Ct. 270 U.S. so connected one another treat- satisfactorily 651. L.Ed. ment of the one cannot be overstepping done without into the bounds opinion, refer- course In opinion,, .however, of the other. “publication” made to the will ence not intended to be at all definitive on the us, question aspect before question “publiea- of what opinion constitutes we are because (cid:127) “publication” tion.’? words granted knowledge. it will be a refused; has been human to the sum of afterward, pat- Tele when Bell American United States phone order, 239, 224, S. is defeated. In Co., 167 U.S. Bag may 144; Paper patented 809, invention 42 L.Ed. Ct. Bag protected by patent, Paper must be [Continental Patent Case new, is, Bag bestowed Paper Co.] Eastern Co. v. first upon public by patentee 748, time L. 405, 424, 28 S.Ct. U.S. * * added, except (Emphasis Jenkins, Mc *.” Brooks v. Ed. Fed.Cas.No.1,953; new.) 432, 437, Lean 370, Haworth, McLean Parker v. p.On states: Robinson Fed.Cas.No.10,738; 372, Allen identity inventions “The of two Hunter, 6 McLean legal having established, the Attorney Fed.Cas.No.225; General novelty depends upon the of either Works, v. Rumford Chemical knowledge, state of He Bann. & Ard. concerning invention, date of its reap keep secret his invention and the nature existence indefinitely. In considera its fruits a other. If one existed in manner conse the and tion of disclosure its public accessible to the when the community, quent the the benefit invented, latter is other was the * * * (Em granted. patent is may public, it new to whatever the phasis added.)” inventor; and, on the be the por- placed Emphasis has been though hand, earlier were other the relating foregoing passage tions complete at the a art or instrument pub- upon the conferred the benefit later, date of the invention grant patent. It will a lic the yet if and inacces- it were concealed public de- so by the that unless observed sible, public so that the had derived patentee, his benefit, the unless rives disclosure, invention, no benefit from its human the sum adds to later, public if first introduced to would, grant patent knowledge, use, them a becomes in reference to fact, monopoly above within - entitling invention, new the inven- patent definition, policy of the and the they tor from it to a whom receive frustrated. laws would be added.) patent.” (Emphasis Patents, Thus, Vol. in Robinson on English case, v. And in an Patterson (1890), p. it stated that: 305 Light Co., App. & L.R. 3 Gas Coke en- not become “An inventor does (1877), was that: it stated patent exercis- titled ing pro- patent “The consideration for a faculties his creative public of the communication to the instrument. art or of an duction grant process is new. In Hind- for The consideration (1st 1846, p. Patents privilege benefit march on ed. is the his exclusive 33) pub- upon public it is laid down that ‘if the confers which he possessed lic once becomes in- means of an hands a placing in thei-r by any whatever, through vention means which use of their subsequent patent for can supplied. If same it wants granted, already either true or made acces- first means genius per- inventor himself or son; the inventive to them sible public they inventor, re- cannot be de- or if right incapable prived of the to use the inven- from him it is it first ceive tion, patentee and a application, no benefit re- invention useful give any could not consideration his inventive act from to them sults grant, public public for the the already possessing everything consideration is no want con- patent. When this his * * * give.’ apparent If he could before in- becomes sideration “accessibility” public of the sub in which mode and the vention ject known to matter of the invention that made has been used can be bar, why courts by description in a work essence of the have the circulated, consistently held publicly and the Patent Office that has been * * * duly foreign appli typewritten patent specification or in * * * opened pub file cation which has been enrolled, it avoids foreign inspection patent office though lic in a shown patent, it is not “printed publi actually put is not under in use.” a bar it ever was provisions cation” of the current Williams, Webs. v. Stead See also predecessor patent De Ferranti acts? 137, 142. Pat.Cas. Westinghouse, Jr., 1890 C.D. v. foregoing quoted the have We Wright (Commr.Pats.); Parkin liberally, feel for we passages Jenness, (Commr.Pats.); 1893 C.D. 64 passages foundation lies the these parte Ulmann, (Commr. Ex 1925 C.D. 27 present our bar Pats.) Bayer Rice, 1934, App.D.C. is true While act. Haller, parte 75 F.2d Ex English case particulars, various U.S.P.Q. (Bd.Appls.1953); Carter pat applicable to our aforequoted is not Products., Colgate-Palmolive Co., Inc., v. language laws, used the broad Why D.C.D.Md.1955, F.Supp. good feel is we what consistent reasoning Gebrauchsmuster, have German today. good es law pub typewritten open which are that, in quoted is we have sence of all inspection, applied lic utory not been stat grant, some consideration provisions?6 bars under same given thing must be Wadham, Cir., Permutit Co. v. the (albeit that not have before it did enjoyment Cir., 454, rehearing denied, 13 F.2d 6 may “something” this of 20; 1926, 15 F.2d Permutit v. Graver Co. public years). If postponed the for 17 Corp., Cir., 1930, 7 43 Ex F.2d “something,” already possessed of that is Smith, U.S.P.Q. parte (Bd.Appls. 82 83 public, there to the or it is accessible 1941). if pat and consideration is a failure of granted.5 may the state **Note pure upon It would seem that based Stimson, C.C.D.Or. in ment Cottier logic alone, foregoing the ac- means of “print the wherein 20 F. cessibility public equally to the would be Act publication” of the Patent bar ed vitiating effective in consideration the considered: 1870 was necessary grant support patent the “ * * * goes upon statute “printed” publications. would be theory the work has that the foregoing questions, answer to the how- public, to the made accessible ever, by logical is not to be obtained thereby been has invention that the analysis, for as will hereinafter longer given public, is no the shown, Congress’ failure to cover this *** by any patentable one. type unquestionably of situation has added.)” (Emphasis legislative oversight been due to or to policy analysis some not obscure detectible on of the basis If our correct, opinions considering nu- the face the publication” “printed bar is question containing nor in the volumes If it is questions arise. merous inconsistently course, Congress, made the It is to be noted has not 6. cases, typewritten college publication” “printed these bar theses existence library placed patent grant under all circum- shelves have been held a “printed publications.” given applicants parte Congress to be Ex has stances. Hershberger, year (Bd.Appls. grace U.S.P.Q. period of one after print- 1952); Halberg, Gulliksen v. in a 75 U.S.P.Q. been described invention (Bd.Appls.1937); applicant publication to file Hamilton Labora ed 102(b). Massengill, Cir., 1940, application. tories U.S.C. his F.2d original “printed patent “The history act legislative repealed new act was in 1793 and provision. Act this substituted. 6 of Section however, clear, reason that It provided: foreign applications were patent “ ac- such is found ‘That the defendant the courts applied as bars plead permitted publication, tion shall requirement general give issue, act bar, “printed.”7 must be be a evidence, any special matter —in “print- Congressional over the concern thing tending prove that —the necessary publication aspect of ed” orig- by patent thus secured was grant statutory to the bar constitute inally patentee, discovered considered best be tese, or had been but had been publica- handwritten a discussion public work, an- described in some tions. discovery supposed terior to the dispute the fact No one would patentee.’ wholly handwritten revised in- “The was act phrase embraced within provided in 1836. The revised act other, publication.” reason For one could 15 that the defendant Section Congress felt such tending plead any prove- matter establish sufficient to would not be invention sought patented was to be the invention “ pub- ‘had been described some (or, already afore- realm supposed lic work anterior public). stated, accessible to the was discovery patentee or thereof excluding Congress’ Clearly, reason had been use etc.’ publications relate handwritten did not “In same Section act of publication, permanence pub- employed ‘printed knowledge words there is common ‘public be- use.' It is to manuscripts lication’ numerous handwritten uncertainty noted extant which are centuries old. ‘public section 15 whether work’ in equally certain that was thing ‘print- referred to the same legibility pub- concerned with the publication’ ed in section 5.8 lication, if the ille- were handwritten, gible, “printed” or whether “In words the act argue no one would would con- dropped ‘public and the work’ were statutory a stitute bar under the herein- adopted ‘printed publication’ words provisions volved of the Patent laws. place present Re- in them. Congress say to And was concerned employs only the vised Statute also appearance with the ap- ‘printed publication.’ words ignore is to realities. The realistic pears from this the statute as distinction that we can see between present drawn not contem- at does “printed” publica- “handwritten” and being any ‘public plate a work’ as producing tions relates the method of public work, special bar but some them. namely, printed publication. a Appls.1937), aminer Halberg, in his What was said Mr. dissenting opinion in Chief of the Patent U.S.P.Q. apposite in Edinburg, 254-255 Gulliksen this point: Office, (Bd. Ex 7644] 14 Ped.Cas. discussed this “One ^[******] rendered decision, [pages part of the statute and during Keene 180, 193, this Wheatley, period No. applications takably 7. The earlier decisions did urge clear were this were, and reason, Ferranti, as the De Parkin & publications, Haller Carter Wright, Bayer cases, Ulinann and v. Kice supra. cases, Products supra, decisions, the later in which cited, the earlier it unmis- should be section 7. made 8. This meaning. light public. known to Knowl- American throws on its some edge use in would stated: the United States decision it was In this probably (or Congress must have so “ concerning pat- laws ‘Under the reasoned) come the attention of the inventions, previous de- ents for a people prob- American the same whereas alleged in scription invention ability present would re- not be work,” a means “public a spect knowledge to such and use abroad. But patent. printed book defeats a By token, “print- the same in the case unprinted description such a in an Congress publications, ed” no doubt effect.’ book in itself no such go reasoned that one would printing given description trouble of distinc- the Court draws “Here thing print unless it was desired ‘printed book’ tion between a copies a number of of it. Note further deci- ‘unprinted same book.’ In dissenting opinion statement dis- sion there is a discussion case, p. supra, the Gulliksen at ‘writing’ 255: tinction drawn between ‘printing.’ refers The Court suggested “It has multiply- process ‘printing’ as ‘printed publication’ words as used ing copies and to ‘writ- sheets special statute have ing’ making copies let- letter connotation and should be consider- stated, The Court ter. together separately. ed rather than “ considered, If so ‘printing’ believed it is be- is that ‘Thus the difference obviously would multiplication refer and addition tween producing copies some mode increasing the means of human ordinarily which would used writing copies by are number of making large number so extremely By printing, limited. general as to insure distribution contrary, they may, on the ” * * * publication. (Emphasis Lord be multi- Cranworth words ” added.) plied indefinitely.’ (Emphasis in original.) Printing alone, course, in- reasonably sufficient assure that stop not think should But we do that we work, would have access to the analysis point in our of what always possibility for the exists by “printed.” A fur- intended may suppressed matter viewing refinement made ther might public. too, never reach the Then “printed publication” words lapses print- time between the they appear in which context ing given publishing work, and the aof Act. It is to be that a noted charged public the not be is to with “printed publication” may effec- be an knowledge subject of a until such time granting patent if tive bar reason, as it is to it. For this available foreign country.” it or is “in this required description it is only the not b). knowledge 102(a, or For U.S.C. § printed be but be as well. statutory the invention use of to be a however, bar, it coun- must be this “in though But the law has mind the try.” 102(a). patent The 35 U.S.C. § knowledge probability public of act of 1836 made the same distinction. publication, contents law does July 4, 1836, 357, 15, 5 Act c. Stat. of go require prob- further and that the not Bearing in mind nature the basic ability actuality. must have become an grant, of dis- as heretofore words, In other once has been estab- readily- cussed, it becomes evident that print- been lished item has both with, was what concerned both published, necessary is not ed to probability given any 1836 and was the show that of further number subject actually people that the matter would be made specific saw it or that foregoing reasons, micro- For copies circulated.9 have been of number copy is film disclosure presumption Karcher up The law sets a conclusive “printed publication” con- within knowl public has to the effect that the single templation 102(b). con- Our edge of section publication when a “print- microfilm not so clusion that the is printed copy proved been is to have unnecessary ed” consider Eaton, makes it to published. See Evans Curtis, published. whether it was 4 L.Ed. Wheat. (4th ed. Patents, pp. Law of 500-03 In view of the concession 1873). stand if claims must allowable legal effect, is held no reference guide, foregoing Using aas the decision of the board is reversed. question clear. instant answer to the microfilming Reversed. means furnishes a While proba- multiplying copies, Judge WORLEY, (concurring). showing mi- bility, mere that a from a agree by copy has crofilm of a disclosure I with reached the result produced, majority has achiev- disclosure under- but do not wish to holding circulation and no circum- ed wide stood as under knowledge The public of it. stances can microfilm be repro- day meaning. present statutory microfilm nature within the printing from normal differs duction thorough very ma- review Though more methods. one would difficulty jority illustrates the extreme likely produce number than not stating finality just con- what material, produc- copies printed one publication, well stitutes a microfilming ing item judicial as the irreconcilable conflicts copy many. In the apt make one which have resulted therefrom. printing, a number case unless Congressional I doubt that intent time, produced, waste of unitary term result; pres- and materials would labor satisfactorily can be determined microfilming methods, day interpretation literal of those words designed pro- hand, other are as well individually. seems me fac- many microfilm with- duce one as well as consideration, entitled to in- tors are cluding out waste. only physical actual process employed production repro- present no doubt true It is duction, availability, but also accessi- anomalous, our as evidenced law bility, and, perhaps, dissemination the microfilm is conclusion cases, foreign file, even intent.1 Under such “printed.” laid some A circumstances, appear inspection, print- it would public advisable open typewritten, limit determination in instant publication, because ed question specific presented. publication, case Any while a available holding matter, or, broader for that Rhodesian the library, a Southern might dictum, well in increas- even ing result ob- would be. former is diminishing present likely than eyes rather viously more reach condition unsettled the law. American than the latter. obvious, however, we unless It Judge RICH, (concurring). 102(b) for rewrite U.S.C. § are to Congress, must reach- this be the result concur in conclusion reached but I law, necessarily job interpret not is to with Our all the reasons ed. opinion. majority make it. to statement, however, presupposes 1930, Cir., F.2d see also Joc 9. This “pub- Cir., Leviton, publication so-called F.2d in fact. The kmus private a communi- cannot be lication” Blair, Esq. John A. delivered 1. A talk like. Dow Chemical Co. v. cation Michigan Patent Law Association Treating Corp., Bros. Well Williams February 7, Meeting First, “publication,” dispose any copies irrele- somewhat to a even before always actually matter, quite and still I have been sold. It would dif- vant be a grant say opinion proposition a am ferent ad- to that an forthcoming monopoly that much a a vertisement of book which creates thinking yet printed publica- ar- had not confused has resulted from was a guing is, however, construing tion of In does not. It the book. the term it distinguished “printed monopoly beneficial to it seem to be only monopolies printing to that be be from odious axiomatic that the willing agree publishing, extent am I with done before the otherwise something majority publication discussion of United will not be Corp., “printed.” v. Dubilier Condenser States I 77 L.Ed. 1114. U.S. S.Ct. If, said, board the microfilm on matter before have commented this comparable mimeograph to a stencil or my page 24 J.P.O.S. at where views (I type to set do believe board fully are more set forth. really type), meant unset to refer to agree majority opin- While I with the technically reasonable, seems to me to be ion in its ultimate conclusion fails, by very fact, it reason of that single microfilm shown to on file be support the board’s view it does because “print- Library is not a ready not constitute material 102(b), publication,” under ed section published merely pro- means but supporting and with the conclusion that ducing printed material, yet unused. “printed,” it is not I think the basis cannot, It become a requires the latter conclusion clarifica- publication” by published virtue tion because I feel that under different carry reproduction offer out we wish circumstances in future process request copy on make “printed pub- to be free to hold that a enlargement produce the microfilm or lication” can be made microfilm tech- agree prints fully therefrom. I thus niques. I think it should clear that majority’s with the conclusion that holding we are that microfilms can microfilm at bar under no circumstances be deemed to the reason means that it “printed.” making prints which has not been shown board, parte I think that the in the Ex put hap- to have been to use. We do not case, U.S.P.Q. 453, Brendlein on pen Library to know whether the of Con- relied, good which it had a idea which gress original microfilm is an made misapplied, however, it in both that case photographing the documents which are regarded this one. said that photographic copy on or a recorded copy category a microfilm as in the same (or origi- “print”) from an made such might sheet the stencil nal. It makes no difference to me in this mimeograph copies produce “or used on, case because as of date relied might type up with the be set the date of of the O.T.S. print copies an number of unlimited bibliography, copy no other of it has writing.” It then moved from idea been shown to exist and I can see another, O.T.S. announce- assuming reason for the existence of availability copies ment made to be copies, normally as would be done from the microfilm constituted in law ordinary peri- ease book or mi- material To me the differ- odical. situation is no crofilm. original than it would be if argument documents, photographed I will assume for sake of now onto the law) microfilm, library (and I think it is the that when a and the bibliography had of- has been are O.T.S. book fering delivery, applicants photo- furnish available advertisement bring copies offering thereof. its static We for sale would about then ibility have bility quire “printed” tion.” Were unprinted public agree, precisely the same inclusion within wide in we would not real the term otherwise, significance circulation documents degree of access have the logic the term which would re the word they are publica proba is, I all Application C.C.P.A. (Patents). United States Court of Customs Patent Charles A. Stokes. 2,May Appeal Arthur Appeals. No. L. HALL 6346. and tribunals some all While “accessible.” direction, as gone quite far in that have they “college cases,” I feel thesis unjustifiably so have done Knowledge wrong theory. is not has

possession where distinguished dissemination, as been no surely accessibility, and from technical underlying concept the former is Print

expression “printed publication.” meaning original

ing, and common implies use which the term now the printing press, is not even multiple producing means for

common microfilm tech already replace

niques use to We must fields. some books of the mean in our view narrow

ing “printed” novel situations and in to see whether consider facts

should in fact had has

the interested in the form

possession of the disclosure Nothing general publication. present facts of the

kind shown rigid rule about microfilm No

case. deduced, however, from de our

should be hand it should on the other cision. And Kenway, Kenway, Jenney, Herbert W. assumed that the word Hildreth, Boston, Mass., Witter & any paper is so sacred Hatfield, Washington, C., Dos T. appellants. D. printing press and has come off of a been having “published” sense pub Moore, Washington, known to some fraction

made Clarence W. D. C. Behrens, (Arthur Washington, C., qualify H. D. lic will counsel), legal for Commissioner sys of Pat- 102(b). In our under section ents. given to substance tem effect is to be making without a fetish and intent JOHNSON, Judge, Chief Before dictionary or of ritualis either of the O’CONNELL, WORLEY, RICH and Keifer Keifer F. Judges. tic formulae. & v. R. JACKSON, retired, C., 391 footnote 306 U.S. S. RICH, Judge. 784; 516, 83 L.Ed. Johnson v. United Ct. Cir., 30, 32, L.R.A., States, appeal F. from the decision This Markham, Cir.,

N.S., Appeals affirming Cabell v. Board of Patent Office rejection examiner’s claims F.2d

Case Details

Case Name: Application of William L. Tenney, Paul A. Frank and Scoville E. Knox

Court Name: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Date Published: Apr 23, 1958

Citation: 254 F.2d 619

Docket Number: Patent Appeal 6327

Court Abbreviation: C.C.P.A.