Opinion ID: 1510663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Description of the Invention.

Text: The statute (title 35, U. S. C. § 33 [35 USCA § 33], 38 Stat. 958) provides: Before any inventor or discoverer shall receive a patent for his invention or discovery he shall    file in the Patent Office a written description of the same, and of the manner and process of making, constructing, compounding, and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, construct, compound, and use the same.    The rule is that if the description in the patent is such that one skilled in the art can follow it and produce the result which the patent claims, it is sufficiently certain. Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 620, 644, 20 L. Ed. 860; The Telephone Cases, 126 U. S. 1, 536, 8 S. Ct. 778, 31 L. Ed. 863; Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 566, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. Ed. 553; Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron Co., 185 U. S. 403, 437, 22 S. Ct. 698, 46 L. Ed. 968; Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U. S. 366, 383, 29 S. Ct. 652, 53 L. Ed. 1034; Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co., 277 U. S. 245, 257, 48 S. Ct. 474, 72 L. Ed. 868; Schaum & Uhlinger, Inc., v. Copley-Plaza Operating Co. (D. C.) 260 F. 197, 203, 204, affirmed in (C. C. A. 1) 269 F. 140; R. H. Comey Co. v. Monte Christi Corp. (C. C. A. 3) 17 F.(2d) 910, 912; Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co. (C. C. A. 6) 49 F.(2d) 886, 887; In re Pilling (Cust. & Pat. App.) 44 F.(2d) 878, 879: Stelos Co. v. Hosiery Motor-Mend Corp. (D. C.) 60 F.(2d) 1009, 1011; 1 Walker on Patents (6th Ed. 1929) § 217; 35 USCA § 33, note 32. The same question was raised and determined by the Supreme Court in the case of Seabury v. Am Ende, 152 U. S. 561, 14 S. Ct. 683, 38 L. Ed. 553. The court said (pages 566, 567 of 152 U. S., 14 S. Ct. 683, 684): The first ground of defense relied on is that the patentee has failed to describe his invention in such full, clear, and exact terms as to enable persons reading the description of the invention to construct and use it; and it is contended that the strength of the boracic acid solution is not prescribed, nor the precise proportion of glycerine. In considering this objection, it must be remembered that the description is addressed to persons skilled in the art to which it relates. The solution of boracic acid is referred to, not as anything new, but as an article well known to druggists and physicians; and, when the patentee says that he `prepares a solution of boracic acid in the usual manner,' he means as it has formerly and customarily been prepared. When he directs that a small proportion of glycerine shall be added, it is obvious that the quantity of the glycerine is to vary with the amount of cotton and boracic acid used, but that the merits of the invention will not depend on whether, in a given case, a little more or less glycerine is used.    We, therefore, agree with the court below in thinking that `an intelligent chemist, setting out properly to combine the enumerated ingredients into which the cotton is to be immersed, and with which it is to be impregnated, could hardly go astray.' It is also to be observed, that neither the defendant, in making the infringing article, nor the several witnesses of eminence in the medical profession, who testified to the practical value of the patented dressing, seem to have had any difficulty in understanding and applying the description contained in the patent. There is no testimony in the record that any one skilled in the art had the slightest difficulty in following Donner's specifications. The evidence is all to the contrary. One of the plaintiff's experts testified: I experienced no difficulty in understanding or following this disclosure of the Donner patent. Another expert witness for the plaintiff testified: I have read and understand the Donner patent in suit. I have made two or three samples according to the directions of the patent and experienced no difficulty whatever in so doing, i. e., in making the paste that is described there. Still another expert, called by the plaintiff, said that he had had no difficulty in following the directions of the patent. The defendant produced no evidence that any one skilled in the art was unable to secure Donner's result by Donner's process as described in the patent. We think there is no justification, under the circumstances, for holding the patent void for lack of a sufficient description of the invention.