Opinion ID: 279293
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The French Patent

Text: 16 Findings of fact 14, 15 and 16 read as follows: 17 '14. French Patent No. 859,531, granted to I. G. Farbenindustrie in 1940, taught that a whitening or color-contrast effect occurred when rigid thermoplastic materials were cold deformed, that this effect could be advantageously used to produce color-contrasting letters and designs on such plastic sheets, and that such lettered sheets could be used for signs and labels. The French patent described polyvinyl chloride and copolymers of polyvinyl chloride as plastic materials suitable for practice of the described method and to make the described lettered sheets, and stated that the whitening effect was enhanced by additives, including talc and diatomaceous earth. The same plastic materials and the same additives are described and claimed in the Souza-- '625 and Souza-- '822 patents. The French patent, by way of exemplars for producing cold deformation in the plastic sheets, described use of dies and a stylus, each of which is also described for such use in the Souza patents. In concept and in detail as to plastic materials, their additives, the method, and the plastic sheet article, the French patent described that which, several years later, was the subject of the Souza-- '625 and Souza-- '822 patents. 18 '15. The teachings of the French patent, read by one skilled in the plastics art such as defendants' expert, Mr. Warren T. Buschmann, were followed by Mr. Buschmann as to samples of plastic composition prepared by him with laboratory equipment and cold embossed by him in Court. The whitening or color contrast resulting from cold deformation of these samples was the same in kind as that referred to in the Souza-- '625 and Souza-- '822 patents. 19 '16. The method claimed in the claims of the Souza-- '625 patent and the articles claimed in the claims of the Souza-- '822 patent are anticipated by French Patent No. 859,531; the French patent plainly discloses the sole factor upon which the applicant relied, as lacking in the prior art, in overcoming the Patent Office rejection.' C.T. 77-78, 143-44. 20 Dymo challenges these findings by arguing specifically that Buschmann was unable to produce a color-contrasting sheet of plastic in accordance with the teaching of the French patent-- and, more generally, that that patent was too indefinite and inaccurate to constitute an anticipation of the Souza method and label patents. We hold, however, that the record supports the district court's finding with regard to Buschmann's demonstration, and that the court's conclusion as to anticipation was correct. Specifically in point is the testimony of Dr. Rodney Andrews, one of Avery's expert witnesses, concerning the teaching of the French patent in comparison with aspects of Souza's applications, R.T. 1000-14; that of Buschmann, to the effect that his demonstration work followed the teaching of the French patent, R.T. 1194-97; and a statement by Dr. Carl S. Miner, Jr., one of Dymo's experts, to the same effect, R.T. 1971-72. See also R.T. 1257-58, Ex. IB. Furthermore, the trial court was hardly compelled as a matter of law to find that the color contrast produced by the method of the French patent differed in any significant fashion from that yielded by the Souza method patent. See Kalich v. Paterson Pac. Parchment Co., 137 F.2d 649, 652 (9th Cir. 1943) (citing rule that 'one is not entitled to a patent who merely makes a change in form, proportion or degree'). The Souza patent does not, in fact, draw any distinction among degrees of 'whitening.'