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

Heading: issuance of the souza patents

Text: 8 The district court's findings of fact relating to the issuance of the Dymo patents find full support in the record and are summarized in the discussion immediately following. D. W. Souza, to whom the patents in question were orginally issued, had been engaged in the radiator repair business prior to his involvement in the matters giving rise to those actions. In the course of his work he had hand-embossed metal tapes to produce radiator identification tags. Deciding that plastic might be used for such tags as well as metal, he procured from the Union Carbide Corporation sheets of various commercially available plastics. In hand-embossing them he noticed that on certain of the plastics the embossed characters were whitened, in contrast with the darker color background of the unembossed areas. 9 After further experimentation Souza applied for the patents here in question. The district court found that the prior art considered gy the Patent Office took cognizance of the whitening effect upon which Souza's applications were based, but did not utilize the effect to produce color-contrast writing. Even on the basis of this prior art, the Examiner in the prosecution file of the method patent at first rejected the claims, stating that 10 'One skilled in the art, knowing that the usually undesirable surface whitening effect will occur if low sheet temperature are used, i.e., cold working of such sheets, could easily adapt this knowledge to arrive at applicant's process if this surface effect was desired.' C.T. 75-76, 142. 3 11 Souza prevailed over this initial rejection, however, by contending that his invention consisted essentially of the recognition of a desirable result (the production of color-contrast, embossed writing) from an effect (stress-whitening of certain plastics) which had previously been thought undesirable. 12 The district court found that the most pertinent prior art, however, was not before the Patent Office when it approved Souza's applications, and that therefore the presumption of validity attaching to the method and label patents, 35 U.S.C. 282 (Supp. II, 1967), was overcome: 13 'This prior art comprised prior publications, prior patents and prior knowledge and uses as to the desirability of employing the stress-whitening effect manifested by the same plastics as later used by Souza to produce whitened or color-contrasting lettering or designs upon cold deformation, and it included as to patents and publications: (1) French Patent No. 859,531, which issued June 10, 1940 to I.G. Farbenindustrie (Ex. AF); (2) Union Carbide 'Vinylite Rigid Sheets Plastics', 1942 (Ex. S.); (3) Union Carbide 'Vinylite Rigid Sheets Plastics', 1945 (Ex. W); and (4) German publication entitled 'Kunstoffe in Technischen Korrosionsschutz, Handbuch fur Vinidur und Oppanol', (1943) (1949) (Ex. AJ, Ex. 20), 14 and, as to prior knowledge and uses, activities, prior to the alleged invention by Souza, at Union Carbide Corporation, Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation, and Industrial Rayon Corporation.' C.T. 76-77, 143. 15 We turn now to an examination of this prior art, through a consideration of the district court's findings relating thereto.