Opinion ID: 279293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the adhesive tape patent

Text: 39 It is not seriously disputed that the only original aspect of the Souza adhesive tape patent lay in the supposed originality of the color-contrast label itself. The invalidity of the method and label patents, then, renders the adhesive tape patent also invalid, and the district court's conclusion to that effect must be affirmed. C.T. 105-06, 162. 40 The district court also found with respect to the adhesive tape patent that: 41 '34. Prior to October 28, 1957, which was one year prior to the filing of the application on which the Souza-- '945 patent issued, G. & S. Sales, Inc., a predecessor of the present Dymo, placed the claimed assembly of the Souza--'945 patent in public use. Prior to that date, the patentee Souza, as president of G. & S. Sales, left with Mr. Lee O. Stafford, head of the Value Engineering Branch at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, hand-embossing machines and embossable rigid vinyl plastic tapes in the patented assembly to demonstrate it to other representatives. Stafford and those under his supervision at Puget Sound, prior to October 28, 1957, demonstrated the use of the patented assembly for identification purposes at various shops and offices of the shipyard. By a letter dated September 6, 1957, Souza offered this material for sale by transmitting to Stafford a G. & S. Sales price list setting forth prices for individual rolls of the patented assembly as well as quantity prices for it. Souza testified that he met with Stafford in connection with attempted sales of the patented assembly. The evidence is clear and satisfactory that the activities of G. & S. Sales and the patentee Souza at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard were for commercial purposes, for the purposes of sale and not experimental; and that the patented assembly was placed in public use at the shipyard prior to the critical date of October 28, 1957. 42 '35. Prior to October 28, 1957, Mrs. Mildred Silcox, Supervisor of the Plant Account Branch at the Oakland, California Naval Supply Center, received from Mr. Ralph Norvelle, a representative of G. & S. Sales, Inc., samples of the patented assembly of the Souza-- '945 patent, in the form of vinyl plastic tape, an adhesive backing and a paper protective liner, together with a G. & S. Sales price list for the patented assembly. An embossed plastic label of one of the samples of the patented assembly was affixed to the bumper of Mrs. Silcox' car. Based upon the information received from Norvelle, Mrs. Silcox recommended on October 4, 1957 that the tape, so constructed, be used at the Supply Center for Navy identification tags as a substitute for metal identification tags. The samples and information provided to Mrs. Silcox by Norvelle, and her use of the samples, also placed the patented assembly 'on sale' and in public use prior to October 28, 1957. 43 '36. The deposition testimony of Souza, Stafford, and Mrs. Silcox corroborated by contemporaneous correspondence, samples, and sales information. G. & S. Sales, Inc. provides substantial evidence that, prior to the critical date of October 28, 1957, G. & S. Sales, for the purpose of promoting sales of the patented assembly, placed the patented assembly 'on sale' and in public use in the United States at various naval installations.' C.T. 86-88, 152-54. 44 This finding of fact to the effect that G. & S. Sales placed the subject matter of the adhesive tape patent on sale more than a year prior to the patent application is not clearly erroneous, and provides another foundation for the district court's conclusion regarding that patent's invalidity. Souza's deposition reveals an affirmative response to the question whether certain of his activities prior to August 8, 1957, were in connection with the 'sale of embossable plastic tapes having an adhesive backing,' with a 'liner or protective backing on the adhesive.' R.T. 1439-40. Stafford testified to a similar effect. R.T. 1420. See also R.T. 1116-17, 1400-02, 1445-46, Exs. CH, CL, CW, KI. Dymo's attempt to limit the subject matter of the patent to tape assemblies with ductile protective backings-- polyethylene, for instance, rather than paper-- cannot succeed in view of general language of the patent claims themselves, which cover any assemblies with a 'detachable protective backing' (claims 1, 2), or 'detachable backing sheet layer' (claims 3, 4). Ex. 3. And testimony tending to show that early sales of the adhesive tape assembly were experimental might reasonably have been overcome in the district court's weighing of the evidence by the contrary testimony referred to above. 45 It is true that Dymo has enjoyed considerable commercial success with the subject matter of the Souza patents. Success in the marketplace is, however, a secondary consideration in evaluating the validity of a patent under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103. See, e.g., Jeddeloh Bros. Sweed Mills, Inc. v. Coe Mfg. Co., 375 F.2d 85, 92 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 823, 88 S.Ct. 57, 19 L.Ed.2d 76 (1967). Energetic promotion may make successful a product that has Lingered in commercial limbo for years. The needs and attitudes of potential buyers often change, so that a product which did not meet with great demand in one year-- or decade-- may be eagerly sought by customers in another. Dymo's thriving business may well be the result of such factors. And, although it will not have a monopoly on the labels here in question, that business will no doubt continue to thrive. It is clear, however, that the subject matter of the Souza patents is not sufficiently novel-- nor is it sufficiently 'nonobvious'-- to merit a patent monopoly. The contributions of Souza and Dymo should not be denigrated; but they do not rise to the level of invention. At most, they represent the rediscovery-- and the very successful exploitation-- of an idea which had been discovered several times before. 46 Since we affirm the district court's conclusion that the three patents are invalid, we need not consider whether Com-Tech has infringed them. 47 Affirmed.