Case Name: In re Joseph D. Fisher
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-03-29
Citations: 50 C.C.P.A. 1019
Docket Number: No. 6783
Parties: In re Joseph D. Fisher
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, and Smith, Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatric.
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 1019–1025

Head Matter:
314 F. 2d 817; 137 USPQ 150
In re Joseph D. Fisher
(No. 6783)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
March 29, 1963
Frank T. Barter, Carl C. Batst (George R. Jones and Beale and Jones, of counsel) for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore (Jack E. Armore, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, and Smith, Associate Judges, and Judge William H. Kirkpatric.

Opinion:
Rich, Judge
dissenting:
1. I dissent from the denial of the Petition for Rehearing.
2. Though I was one of the majority, when this case was handed down on 21 September 1962, which held that the claims do not define the invention with the "particularity required by 35 U.S.C. 112," second paragraph, the petition has persuaded me that such holding was erroneous. The Patent Office memorandum in opposition to the petition further convinces me that the decision made was erroneous, I therefore feel obliged to withdraw from the maj ority.
While I agree with the points made in Judge Smith's former and present dissenting opinions, I wish to make a few additional points relative to the law as applied by the majority, to which end I write the following:
My main objection to the court's opinion is the application made of General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., et al., 304 U.S. 364, 37 USPQ 466 (hereinafter "Wabash"). I agree that the Wabash claims were bad because, as the Court held, they were so broad in their terminology that they did not distinguish from the prior art, hut I do not agree with the majority here that part [A] of Fisher's •claim is "comparable to" the Wabash claims. The Wabash case rested in part on the Perkins Glue case and I agree that the claims there were bad too, because they claimed any starch glue "having substantially the properties of animal glue," and were considered by the •Court to .claim any starch glue "as good as" animal glue.
The composition here seems to be one which cannot, as a practical matter, at the present stage of development of this art, be specifically defined by a formula. It is here being defined in terms of its properties — properties which, unlike Wabash, do distinguish it from the prior art; and, unlike Perkins Glue, they are not in terms merely of being "as good as" some known material.
In spite of the fact that the claim here is wholly unlike the claims in Wabash or in Perkins Glue (while very like the claims in the Parke-Davis and Merck & Co. cases the majority refuses to follow), it clearly appears that the sole ground of the majority's decision is xhe dictum in the Wabash case about "functional language at the exact point of novelty." This is not my interpretation alone; the Patent Office brief opposing the petition says:
" the basis of the Court's decision is that the claims "do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the alleged invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112" in that they use "conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty." [Emphasis mine.]
.1 wish to show why this is not enough to condemn a claim.
It was this precise phrase from the Wabash case, as used again in the later Halliburton case, 329 U.S. 1, that was behind the writing into the statute of the 3rd paragraph of section 112, as I will show presently. But first I call attention to a passage in Wabash not mentioned in the majority opinion:
A limited use of terms of effect or result, which accurately define the essential qualities of a product to one skilled in the art, may in some instances be permis-.sihle and even desirable, hut a characteristic essential to novelty may not be distinguished from the old art solely by its tendency to remedy the problems in the art met by the patent. And we may doubt whether the language used in Claim 25, tafeen by itself, conveyed definite meaning to those shilled in the art of incandescent lighting. [My emphasis.]
Here it seems clear that the language of Fisher's claims, as well as the language of his specification, does convey definite meaning. As to the first sentence of the above quotation, truly the distinction set forth is a subtle one, but it seems to me that Fisher's claims define qualities of . Ms product, not merely what his product is intended to accomplish and are not merely in terms of remedying problems in the art. What was it his ACTH product was to accomplish ? The answer to that question will show what would be true "functionality." A good example of such functionality is the Perkins Glue claims, a starch glue "as good as animal glue," (my emphasis) as the Supreme Court read the claims. We have nothing like that here.
The majority opinion seems to me to be dogmatic on the point that "functional language at the exact point of - novelty," which I believe the majority mistakenly construes to mean at any novel point, is a clear rule and controls this case — and would control any other case involving claims which happen to contain that supposed vice. But such is not the law now, if it ever was, even at the time the Wabash case was decided. For the convenience of the interested, I have-collected below extracts from, commentators on some of the new aspects of section 112 in the Patent Act of 1952. I am aware that they mostly relate to combination, rather than composition, claims but I think they have a bearing here. While the majority relies on Wabash, it does not rely on the decision made on the facts therein. It relies only on this phrase, "functional language at the exact point of novelty" which was dictum. That identical phrase was taken up in the Halliburton case by Mr. Justice Black and used as the basis of his decision in a combination claim case. Congress thereafter effectively overruled that case by enacting the third paragraph of section 112, as the following commentators' statements show. I think it may be said, therefore, that the quoted phrase, which the majority opinion here uses as the basis of its decision, is not the controlling principle of law it is-assumed to be.
Here is what the commentators have said, in part:
Stefan A. Riesenfeld, Professor of Law, University of California,, writing in the April 1954 Univ. of Pa. Law Rev. on "The New Ameri can Patent Act in the Light of Comparative Law: Part II," pages 731-2, said:
The Supreme Court has exhibited a high degree of sensitivity against unduly -comprehensive or indiflnite claims and has invalidated scores of patents on this ground [citing, inter alia, Perkins Glue, Wabash, Halliburton, United, Carbon} •except where greater definiteness was not reasonably to be required. It has frowned especially upon functional descriptions, at least where they are either wholly functional or functional at the exact point of novelty. [Citing Perkins Glue, Wabash, and Halliburton] Probably as a reaction against what seemed to be a dangerous trend and excessive formalism the framers of the new code inserted a special paragraph designed to authorize within certain limits the use of functional expressions in patent claims.
# $
"functionality" in claim drafting does not seem to be tabu any longer, •even though it relates to the "most crucial element in the 'new' combination" [saying this was the vice of the claim in Halliburton] or goes to "the precise point of novelty." [Citing Faulkner v. Gibbs, 199 F. 2d 635, 95 USPQ 400 (C.A. 9th 1952), and Wabash, supra.]
Prof. Kiesenfeld in the omitted portion, explained that the amendment was limited to combination claims and by making the omission I do not wish to create the impression he was speaking generally of all kinds of claims.
Also in 1954 the P. J. Federico Commentary in U.S.C.A. came out. Speaking of the last paragraph of 112, he said (at 35 U.S.C.A. Vol. 1, p. 25):
It is unquestionable that some measure of greater liberality in the use of functional expressions in combination claims is authorized than had been permitted by some court decisions, and that decisions such as that in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker 329 U.S. 1, are modified or rendered obsolete, but the exact limits of the enlargement remain to be determined. The language specifies "an" element, which means "any" element, and by this language, it follows that more than one of the elements of a combination claim may be expressed as different "means" plus statements of function. The language does not go so far as to permit a so-called single means claim, that is a claim which recites merely one means plus a statement of function and nothing else.
In the June 1955 George Washington Law Eeview, L. James Harris, in "Some Aspects of the Underlying Legislative Intent of the Patent Act of 1952," at p. 683, starts a 6-page discussion of functionality in claims. At the outset, he points out (fn. 126) "There has been some confusion in the past between the requirements for the description and those for the claims," citing the Wabash case as an example. He says:
In Section 112 the drafters attacked the functionality problem in several ways. To make it clear that claims were not intended to be a description of the invention, the clause relating to the claim in the section was made a separate paragraph.
Speaking specifically of the 3rd paragraph of 112, Harris says:
Here for the first time is statutory recognition of the means clause which had grown up in claim drafting to cover the contribution of the inventor in certain cases where strictly structural terms appeared to be unnecessarily cumbersome or inadequate.
*
The Act now permits combination claims whether or not they are basic or [sic, means to] have a means clause at the exact point of novelty. This does go farther than courts have gone in the past.
See also In re Lundberg et al., 44 CCPA 909, 244 F. 2d 543, 113 USPQ 530.
I submit that it cannot be stated as a sound proposition of law that functional language cannot properly be used at a point or points, including the exact point, of novelty.
The usual reasons for objection to functional language in claims are these:
1. The claim covers everything which would produce a stated result or effect. {Example: a "single-means" claim.)
2. The functional language gives the claim a scope such that it reads on the prior art. (Examples: Wabash and Shortell cases cited by majority.)
3. The claim is vague — the public cannot tell what would infringe it; it does not clearly define.
4. The scope of the claim is unjustifiably broad — it covers too much more than was actually invented and disclosed by the applicant."
The claims in the present case insofar as they contain statements of function do not seem to me to run afoul of any of these objections.
Holland Furniture Company v. Perkins, Glue Company, 277 U.S. 245.
Parke-Davis & Co. v. H. K. Mulford & Co., 196 Fed. 496 (C.A. 2d. 1912). Adrenalin patent claims sustained.
Merck & Co., Inc. v. Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, 253 F. 2d 156, 116 USPQ 484 (C.A. 4th 1958). Vitamin B12 claims sustained.
I say it Is dictum because the Wabash claims were held to read on the prior art. Another Important fact behind the decision in the Wabash case, seemingly overlooked, Is that the product attempted to be claimed was not adequately described in the specification. 'The majority opinion appears to attach a per se stigma to the statements of function used by appellant in, the Instant claims; it fails to consider whether such statements are properly grounded in the description of the invention in the specification. Even prior to the •enactment of the third paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, such a consideration was thought pertinent in cases like the instant case. See, e.g. the Wabash case at 304 U.S. 373, and cases cited therein.
Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, et al., 329 U.S. 1.
See in this regard, P. J. Federico, "Commentary on the New Patent Act," 35 U.S.C.A. Vol. 1, p. 25 (1954) wherein it is stated the word "combination" in the third paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 includes "not only a combination of mechanical elements, but also a combination of subsi anees in a composition claim, or steps in a process claim."
See, however, note 6, supra, and cited text.
Counsel to the Patent, Trademark and Copyright Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, the united States House of Representatives. Directed and supervised the actual work of preparing the preliminary drafts and the bill that culminated in the Patent Act •or 1952. [I quote this from a footnote in the article cited. For a more complete statement of the history of the writing of the Patent Act see a Southwestern Legal Foundation "institute" held March 21-22, 1963, to be published by the Bureau of National Affairs.]
The majority observes that "Included In claim 12 Is a concentrate which has no temphasis the majority's] vasopressin activity." I cannot see how, such an observation In any way logically relates to the propriety of the functional description of properties used by appellant. For example, If the words "at least" were removed from section [A] of claim 12, the claim would not Include "a concentrate which has no vasopressin activity." The claim, however, would still contain the same junctional language objected to. It appears to me, therefore, that the real objection the majority has to claim 12 Is that It is unduly broad, apart from any consideration of "functionality." But that was not a ground of rejection in the Patent Office and so is not before this court.