Opinion ID: 279293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: background of the appeal

Text: 2 Three patents are in issue, all of which were originally issued to D. W. Souza and are presently owned by Dymo. Each of the patents relates to an embossable plastic tape on which characters may be stamped to create what have become relatively familiar plastic labels. The labels may be produced individually and inexpensively by use of a hand embossing machine, and have therefore become rather widely used by small businesses and private individuals as well as by industry in general. The distinctive feature of the tapes is that, when they are embossed, the characters thus stamped upon them take on a white color, contrasting with the original dark shades of the plastics. This 'stress-whitening' quality of the plastics used-- which are described in the patent claims as polyvinyl chloride and copolymers of polyvinyl chloride, especially copolymers of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate-- renders the finished label particularly readable and attractive. The patents in question are the following: 3 (a) No. 2,925,625, dated February 23, 1960, and entitled 'Contrast Color Embossed Plastics and Method of Production.' This patent covers the method for producing the labels described above, and will be referred to as the 625 patent' or the 'method patent.' 4 (b) No. 2,996,822, dated August 22, 1961, and entitled 'Contrast Color Embossed Plastics.' This patent has as its subject matter the plastic labels themselves, and will be referred to as the 822 patent' or the 'label patent.' 5 (c) No. 3,036,945, dated May 29, 1962, and entitled 'Embossable Plastic Assembly.' The subject matter of this patent is a product marketed by Dymo and others consisting of three layers: (1) the tape described above, (2) a pressure-sensitive adhesive material, and (3) a removable backing. The assembly is constructed so that one can emboss the plastic, peel off the protective backing, and easily apply the resulting adhesive-backed label to the surface to which he desires to attach it. This patent will be referred to as the 945 patent' or the 'adhesive tape patent.' 6 Asserting that these patents (along with others not here in issue) had been infringed, Dymo brought suit in No. 21533 against Com-Tech, Inc., a maker of tapes similar to those described above, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Com-Tech denied infringement and pleaded the invalidity of all three patents. Avery Products Corporation, another manufacturer of embossable plastic tapes, then brought suit in No. 21534, seeking a declaration of its rights with respect to the products covered by the Dymo patents. Finding that an actual controversy existed in the latter action, the district court ordered the two suits consolidated for trial as to the patents' invalidity. C.T. 1-2. After trial, the court rendered judgment against Dymo in each case, holding that the Dymo patents were invalid and that they had not been infringed by Com-Tech. In view of its conclusion with regard to invalidity, the court found further proceedings in No. 21534, dealing with the question of Avery's possible infringement, to be unnecessary. It is from these judgments that Dymo now appeals. 7 The essential questions for our determination concern whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings, leading to its conclusions of law, that the Dymo patents are invalid because their subject matter (a) was anticipated by the prior art and therefore lacked the requisite novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102(a), (b) (1964), 1 and (b) was rendered 'obvious' by that prior art and therefore was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 (1964). 2