*1 713 successfully charge prop- it could that its being

erty public for use was taken ” just compensation.’ Baltimore ‘without States, supra, 345

& O. R. v. United Co. 148, page page U.S. 593. at 73 S.Ct. at Pan does contend it will American not business, Tokyo money

lose over-all on its carrying passengers

which and includes freight as as mail. well point, af

But for one we would

firm says Pan Board’s American the order. in service rate at least the should carrying

clude an for mail be allowance

tween San Francisco and Seattle. We as think contention as far this is valid only applicable; applicable

it is but it is Tokyo Pan

to so much of American’s goes points mail as from to comes or such

that if it were carried between Seattle Tokyo

and it would be to carried have San Francisco. between Seattle and Wo Jennings Bailey, Jr., Washington, Mr. think Board should how the determine C., appellant. Hugo D. for Mr. Huet- category in much mail is this and revise tig, Jr., C., Washington, D. also entered accordingly. order its appearance appellant. an for Modified and affirmed. Joseph Schimmel,Atty., Mr. S. Pat- U. Office, ent Moore, Sol., with whom Mr. Clarence W. Office, U. S. Patent was on brief, appellee.

the for Judge, Before Chief and Edgerton, Judges. and Circuit Burger, Bazelon PER CURIAM. patent applicant appeals A from a judgment for the Commissioner of Pat- SOHN, partner-

C. H. BOEHRINGER a ents in a suit under 35 U.S.C. 145. The § ship, Appellant, terms, Patent Office tribunals in found v. substance, and District Court in the that WATSON, Robert C. Commissioner of no there was invention. Since these Patents, Appellee. findings appear do not to us to be un- No. 14181. clearly erroneous, reasonable or we must Appeals judgment United States Court of affirm the in favor of the Com- of District Columbia Circuit. presumption missioner. “The that the right reenforced, Patent Office is is in Argued 5, March 1958. case, by presumption present the the that May 1, Decided 1958. right.” Coe, the trial court v. is Abbott App.D.C. 195, 197, 449, 71 109 F.2d 451. Affirmed.

BURGER, Judge (concurring Circuit specially). colleagues

My and the District Court probably is reach a result which com- *2 714 by any responsibility tion, unburdened deci- by of the present state pelled the . hard, patient painstaking the and in for decisions I the But think that sions. pat- development, future of bar impose to work can present barriers state

their protection women stringent for men and con- ent the than patents more far carry actually by implement out who and first instance templated in the either Congress. predictions prophecies of the by the and or later Constitution the Rogers strips “Fan- and the Buck comic for that the art tells us Patent Office The paperback trade. of patent tastic Stories” the appellant was his seeks which us advise counsel by patents Indeed Patent Office anticipated of Merck the Goldberg have Scheuing been (1942), in Rube cartoons that (1903) al. and and et purpose. by This for light used this same known made of was what the encourage hardly way max- seems to the appellant “obvious” did was Merck what engaged any re- art, e., those in incentive for anyone to imum in the i. skilled to mean invention. This could pharmaceutical ex- search and or chemist trained pert. widespread experi- plain research and not that this that is also But it might by well, mentation in these areas application Pat- what the of “obvious” necessity default, ultimately by taught or says economic Merck the Office was ent monopoly. sufficiently for the clear become a Government patent was not Germany, that for which of chemists country famous, justly and of the rest is world, “obvious” this discover

of the to many years ?

truth for so grant patent prefer I to to a would discovering

appellant for unex- some properties.

pected of the Predictions chemical,

properties if and when of this synthesized, no actually were such that tempted synthesize BARASH, it. But Appellant, was to one Max ignored predictions appellant and the v. worthy new, qual- unpredieted and found SEATON, Secretary Fred A. of the ities, ad- scientific world has which the Interior, Appellee. years. mittedly all for overlooked these No. 14069. me, illustrates, inhos- case the This to Appeals United States Court of patents, pitable toward attitude stem- District of Columbia Circuit ming part aversion from natural in our Argued 27, premise monopolies. Nov. 1957. From the that to argued bad, monopolies pat- is that are it April 25, Decided 1958. being monopolies are least sus- ents at monopoly pri- patent pect. a But a is dictionary sense, marily ain technical ownership land, of we is and much as .ought by our reason be clouded not let semantics. hospitality patents of toward lack This suggested argument, in the sometimes is by for counsel the here Patent

made Rogers Office, strips Buck comic that rockets, jets depict space and the which operate age no doubt and will be cited “anticipation” patent applica- of some as devices as the for such fertile tions brain depict for the cartoonist the children.

of appears imagina- unrestrained that It