Document: 382 U.S. 252 86 S.Ct. 335 15 L.Ed.2d 304 HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC., et al., Petitioners,v.Edward J. BRENNER, Commissioner of Patents. No. 57. Argued Nov. 17, 1965. Decided Dec. 8, Rehearing Denied Jan. 1966. See 1000, 527. Laurence B. Dodds, Little Neck, N.Y., for petitioners. William Doolittle, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion Court. 1 The sole question presented here is whether an application patent pending in Patent Office at time a second filed constitutes part 'prior art' as that term used 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1964 ed.), which reads part: 2 'A may not be obtained * if differences between subject matter sought to patented and prior art are such whole would have been obvious invention was made person having ordinary skill *.' 3 arose this way. On December 23, 1957, petitioner Robert Regis on new useful improvement microwave switch. June 24, 1959, Examiner denied Regis' ground one or unobvious light thus did meet standards set forth 103. said unpatentable because joint effect disclosures by patents previously issued, Carlson (No. 2,491,644) Wallace 2,822,526). had issued 20, 1949, over eight years application, admittedly insofar concerned. patent, however, when filed. since March 1954, nearly three nine months before his February 4, 1958, 43 days after application.1 4 After refused issue appealed Board Appeals could properly considered it 'co-pending patent' its were secret known public. rejected argument affirmed decision Examiner. Hazeltine, interest assignee, then instituted present action District Court pursuant 145 ed.) compel patent. agreed with co-pending directed complaint dismissed. 226 F.Supp. 459. appeal per curiam. 119 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 340 F.2d 786. We granted certiorari decide included art, 380 960, 85 1108, 14 152. 5 Petitioners' primary contention art,' 103, really means only publicly known. In support position they refer statement legislative history indictates 'what described section 102.'2 They contend use word 'known' indicates Congress intended include inventions discoveries already made. 6 If petitioners correct their interpretation invention, filed, regard invention. This true although Office, never public forbidden statute from disclosing public, except special circumstances, anything contained application.3 7 Commissioner, relying chiefly Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 390, 46 324, 70 L.Ed. 651, contends become not, contend, issued. case held invalid because, applied for, there completely adequately holding issuance based first barred valid application. Holmes, speaking Court, said, 'The delays office ought cut down what has done. (The applicant) taken steps make soon work, although, course, amendments might required him end reached. see no reason words policy law allowing (the profit delay At p. 401, 325. 8 revision laws 1952, showed approval adopting 102(e) provides shall entitled unless '(e) another United States thereof patent.' Petitioners suggest, answered mere reference 102(e), Milburn, gave rise section, applications same identical But precisely but agree distinction without significance here. While we think petitioners' interesting, depart plain reasoning case. basic upon decided applies equally well When he done add art. rest up Office. Had acted faster, Wallace's two earlier, As Holmes done.' P. 9 To adopt result contended create area where awarded advances read into restricted definition lower patentability extent exist plainly should one. 10 Affirmed. It disputed alleged There is, therefore, priority us. H.R.Rep. 1923, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., (1952). 122 states: 'Applications kept confidence information concerning given authority applicant owner necessary carry out provisions any Act circumstances determined Commissioner.'

Category: 7