Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/98439/a-p-tea-co-vs-supermarket-corp
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:54:30+00:00

Document:
Appellant A. and P. Tea Co.
Claims 4, 5 and 6 of the Turnham patent No. 2,242,408, for a cashier's counter and movable frame for "cash and carry" grocery stores, held invalid for want of invention. Pp. 340 U. S. 148 -154.
(a) The extension of the counter alone was not sufficient to sustain the patent, unless, together with the other old elements, it made up a new combination patentable as such. Pp. 340 U. S. 149 -150.
(b) The mere combination of a number of old parts or elements which, in combination, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention. P. 340 U. S. 151 .
(c) This patentee has added nothing to the total stock of knowledge, but has merely brought together segments of prior art and claims them in congregation as a monopoly. P. 340 U. S. 153 .
(d) Commercial success, without invention, does not make patentability. P. 340 U. S. 153 .
(e) The concurrence of the two courts below in holding the patent claims valid does not preclude this Court from overruling them where, as in this case, a standard of invention appears to have been used that is less exacting than that required where a combination is made up entirely of old components. Pp. 340 U. S. 153 -154.
The District Court sustained the validity of certain patent claims. 78 F.Supp. 388. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 179 F.2d 636. This Court granted certiorari. 339 U.S. 947. Reversed, p. 340 U. S. 154 .
Two courts below have concurred in holding three patent claims to be valid, [ Footnote 1 ] and it is stipulated that, if valid, they have been infringed. The issue for the resolution of which we granted certiorari [ Footnote 2 ] is whether they applied correct criteria of invention. We hold that they have not, and that, by standards appropriate for a combination patent, these claims are invalid.
"the conception of a counter with an extension to receive a bottomless self-unloading tray with which to push the contents of the tray in front of the cashier was a decidedly novel feature, and constitutes a new and useful combination. [ Footnote 3 ]"
U.S. 364. In the second place, were we to treat the extension as adequately disclosed, it would not amount to an invention. We need not go so far as to say that invention never can reside in mere change of dimensions of an old device, but certainly it cannot be found in mere elongation of a merchant's counter -- a contrivance which, time out of mind, has been of whatever length suited the merchant's needs. In the third place, if the extension itself were conceded to be a patentable improvement of the counter, and the claims were construed to include it, the patent would nevertheless be invalid for overclaiming the invention by including old elements, unless, together with its other old elements, the extension made up a new combination patentable as such. Bassick Mfg. Co. v. R. M. Hollingshead Co., 298 U. S. 415 , 298 U. S. 425 ; Carbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Corp., 283 U. S. 27 . Thus, disallowing the only thing designated by the two courts as an invention, the question is whether the combination can survive on any other basis. What indicia of invention should the courts seek in a case where nothing tangible is new, and invention, if it exists at all, is only in bringing old elements together?
Pressed Steel Co. v. Standard Parts, Inc., 307 U. S. 350 , and Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U. S. 84 . The conjunction or concert of known elements must contribute something; only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable. Elements may, of course, especially in chemistry or electronics, take on some new quality or function from being brought into concert, but this is not a usual result of uniting elements old in mechanics. This case is wanting in any unusual or surprising consequences from the unification of the elements here concerned, and there is nothing to indicate that the lower courts scrutinized the claims in the light of this rather severe test.
E.g., Keystone Mfg. Co. v. Adams, 151 U. S. 139 ; Diamond Rubber Co. of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U. S. 428 .
McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U. S. 419 , 141 U. S. 427 .
The standard of patentability is a constitutional standard, and the question of validity of a patent is a question of law. Mahn v. Harwood, 112 U. S. 354 , 112 U. S. 358 . The Court fashioned in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.S.
271, 336 U. S. 275 , a rule for patent cases to the effect that this Court will not disturb a finding of invention made by two lower courts in absence of a very obvious and exceptional showing of error. That rule, imported from other fields, never had a place in patent law. Having served its purpose in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., it is now, in substance, rejected. The Court now recognizes what has long been apparent in our cases: that it is the "standard of invention" that controls. That is present in every case where the validity of a patent is in issue. It is that question which the Court must decide. No "finding of fact" can be a substitute for it in any case. The question of invention goes back to the constitutional standard in every case. We speak with final authority on that constitutional issue, as we do on many others.
Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37 : a method for preserving fish by freezing them in a container operating in the same manner as an ice cream freezer.
Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347 : inserting a piece of rubber in a slot in the end of a wood pencil to serve as an eraser.
Dalton v. Jennings, 93 U. S. 271 : fine thread placed across open squares in a regular hairnet to keep hair in place more effectively.
Double-Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Mfg. Co., 109 U. S. 117 : putting a metal washer on a wire staple.
Miller v. Foree, 116 U. S. 22 : a stamp for impressing initials in the side of a plug of tobacco.
Preston v. Manard, 116 U. S. 661 : a hose reel of large diameter so that water may flow through hose while it is wound on the reel.
Hendy v. Golden State & Miners' Iron Works, 127 U. S. 370 : putting rollers on a machine to make it moveable.
St. Germain v. Brunswick, 135 U. S. 227 : revolving cue rack.
Shenfield v. Nashawannuck Mfg. Co., 137 U. S. 56 : using flat cord instead of round cord for the loop at the end of suspenders.
Florsheim v. Schilling, 137 U. S. 64 : putting elastic gussets in corsets.
Cluett v. Claflin, 140 U. S. 180 : a shirt bosom or dickie sewn onto the front of a shirt.
Adams v. Bellaire Stamping Co., 141 U. S. 539 : a lantern lid fastened to the lantern by a hinge on one side and a catch on the other.
Patent Clothing Co. v. Glover, 141 U. S. 560 : bridging a strip of cloth across the fly of pantaloons to reinforce them against tearing.
Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Mfg. Co., 144 U. S. 238 : placing rubber hand grips on bicycle handlebars.
Knapp v. Morss, 150 U. S. 221 : applying the principle of the umbrella to a skirt form.
Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co., 152 U. S. 425 : an oval, rather than cylindrical toilet paper roll, to facilitate tearing off strips.
Dunham v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 154 U. S. 103 : an envelope flap which could be fastened to the envelope in such a fashion that the envelope could be opened without tearing.
* "Inventive genius" -- Mr. Justice Hunt in Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U. S. 347 , 92 U. S. 357 ; "Genius or invention" -- Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Smith v. Whitman Saddle Co., 148 U. S. 674 , 148 U. S. 681 ; "Intuitive genius" -- Mr. Justice Brown in Potts v. Creager, 155 U. S. 597 , 155 U. S. 607 ; "Inventive genius" -- Mr. Justice Stone in Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery, 269 U. S. 177 , 269 U. S. 185 ; "Inventive genius" -- Mr. Justice Roberts in Mantle Lamp Co. of America v. Aluminum Products Co., 301 U. S. 544 , 301 U. S. 546 ; Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U. S. 84 , 314 U. S. 91 , "the flash of creative genius, not merely the skill of the calling."

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.