Court Opinion

ID: 9461045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:04:38.286856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:52.125477
License: Public Domain

MacKINNON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
The majority opinion concludes that the Patent Office erred in refusing to grant appellant a patent on his grinding wheel. Since the Patent Office rejected appellant’s application under 35 IJ.S.C. § 103 on the ground that the claimed invention was obvious in view of the Toc-ci-Guilbert patent (U.S. Patent No. 3,252,775, issued May 24, 1966), the central issue is whether, given the Toeci-Guilbert disclosure, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at applicant’s invention as described in the claims. I dissent from the majority opinion because there is no basis in the claims for the structural distinction upon which the majority premises pat-entability. The majority errs by confusing the detailed description of the grinding wheel in the specification with the much broader description in the claims. Appellant’s claims include no element which is patentably distinct from the cited Tocci-Guilbert reference.
A fundamental tenet of patent law is that the claims are the measure of the invention. See, e. g., Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 26, 32, 34, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); Milcor Steel Co. v. George A. Fuller Co., 316 U.S. 143, 145-146, 62 S.Ct. 969, 86 L.Ed. 1332 (1942); Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405, 419, 28 S.Ct. 748, 52 L.Ed. 1122 (1908); 4 Walker on Patents § 241 (Deller ed. 1965). The claims of a patent delineate the differences between the prior art and the invention. This rule is embodied in 35 U.S.C. § 112 which states: “The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.”
Since the validity of a patent depends on the inventive elements which are specified in the claims, it is possible for an inventor to disclose patentable subject matter in his application and yet not receive a patent because he failed properly to claim his invention. Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 439 F.2d 1369, 1374 & n.8 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 956, 91 S.Ct. 353, 354, 27 L.Ed.2d 264 (1970); see Murton v. Ladd, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 276, 352 F.2d 942, 944 (1965); Siegel v. Watson, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 344, 346, 267 F.2d 621, 623 (1959); 4 Walker on Patents § 240 (Deller ed. 1965). While it is often stated that the claims must be read in light of the specification, this statement does not mean that essential elements totally lacking in the claims may be supplied by reference to the specification. The specification properly serves to explain the meaning of an abstract term or to limit the scope of the words used in the claims, but patent-ability cannot be premised upon structural elements which appear in the specification but are entirely omitted from the claims. Altoona Theatres v. Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 487, 55 S.Ct. 455, 79 L.Ed. 1005 (1935); Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. Chemtronics, Inc., 439 F.2d 1369, 1377-1378 & n.17 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 956, 91 S.Ct. 353, 354, 27 L.Ed.2d 264 (1970); John Deere Co. v. Graham, 333 F.2d 529, 534 (8th Cir. 1964), aff’d, 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-1405, 56 CCPA 1381 (1969). Otherwise, the patentee *153would receive a patent monopoly far broader than his actual invention.
The majority opinion, after thoroughly reviewing the alleged invention and the state of the art, concludes that the “essential difference between Tocci-Guil-bert’s wheel and appellant’s claimed invention arises from the different objectives of each inventor” — grinding versus polishing. Majority Opinion at 144. Pursuing this different objective, appellant added a step in the manufacture of his wheel which was not present in the manufacture of the Tocci-Guilbert wheel. Thus, after mixing the abrasive with the resin, appellant centrifuges the mixture. This additional step in the manufacturing process apparently results in the single structural difference between appellant’s grinding wheel and Tocci-Guilbert’s abrading and polishing wheel — in appellant’s wheel the abrasive grains are more concentrated in a circumferential region near the periphery of the wheel. The majority opinion describes this structural difference as follows :
Accordingly, and quite contrary to Charvat’s concept, Tocci-Guilbert disclosed a wheel in which the abrasive grains had to be widely and uniformly dispersed throughout the resin structure. Charvat, on the other hand, as his claims and specifications reveal, envisioned a wheel in which the abrasive grains are deliberately concentrated at the edges of the wheel
Id. (emphasis in original). In his briefs before this court, appellant repeatedly emphasizes the importance of his centrifuging process and the resulting concentration of abrasive at the periphery of the wheel:
In plaintiff’s process the abrasive grit/resin mixture is centrifuged to concentrate the grit particles against the peripheral wall of the mold with only a small amount of resin between the particles whereas the reference merely mixes the abrasive grit and the foamable resin without any centrifuging.
* * * * * *
Plaintiff’s process differs in that an additional step is inserted between the mixing and the foaming, namely, centrifuging.
Brief for Appellant at 20; Reply Brief for Appellant at 4. It must be remembered that centrifuging is a process, not a product. Appellant has already been granted a patent for his manufacturing process. He is here attempting to obtain a patent on the structure of the product which results from his unique manufacturing process.
The difficulty with the majority’s decision to allow the product patent premised on the additional step of centrifuging is that neither centrifuging nor any structural result of centrifuging appears in the claims. Original claim 1, which is no longer in the case, did include a structural result of the centrifuging process, described as follows:
. an outer circumferential region of said wheel containing concentrated granular abrasive and a radially inner portion of said wheel being substantially abrasive free, with the abrasive grains of said outer circumferential region ....
Jt.App. at 299a (emphasis added). However, appellant did not consider the circumferential concentration of abrasive to be a significant aspect of his invention. In his response to the first Patent Office rejection of the application, appellant’s attorney stated:
There is no claim in the present application broadly to an abrasive wheel having an outer abrasive zone and an inner non-abrasive zone of plastic or otherwise. The claims all rely on other features . . . for patentability ... .
•X- * * * * *
*154As noted above, the provision of the abrasive-free area is not an essential feature of the present invention although it may ordinarily be produced when employing applicant’s preferred method of manufacture.
Jt.App. at 255a-56a. Having expressly disclaimed any reliance on this structural consequence of certrifuging, appellant withdrew claim 1 from his application while it was pending before the Patent Office. Jt.App. at 361a.
The only claims presently in the application are claims 2-5, 38-43, 45, 47 and 48. These claims contain no reference either to centrifuging or to any structural result thereof. For example, claim 2 specifies “granular abrasive dispersed uniformly and embedded therein,” and claims 38 and 48 specify “abrasive grains uniformly incorporated and embedded in said binder.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the majority has premised patentability on an element which is expressly contradicted by appellant’s claims. Far from distinguishing the invention from the prior art, the claim language demonstrates that appellant’s invention is remarkably similar, if not the same as, Tocci-Guilbert’s patented wheel, which is described and claimed as having “a substantially uniform dispersal of abrasive grit throughout said body.” Tocci-Guilbert Patent, column 14, lines 36-37, 71-72 (emphasis added).
The majority’s emphasis on centrifuging as a distinction from the prior art is entirely misplaced. At the trial in the district court, appellant admitted that the centrifuging technique “is old in the art” of manufacturing grinding wheels. Jt.App. at 91a. Since centrifuging is well known in the art, it follows that the circumferential concentration of abrasive, which is a natural consequence of centrifuging, is also known in the art. Although the initial Patent Office rejections cited patented examples of the centrifuging technique, these references became irrelevant to the application for a product patent after appellant withdrew his original claim 1. The Patent Office brief in this court did not focus upon the centrifuging technique, apparently because appellant never even suggested to'the Patent Office Board of Appeals that the circumferential concentration of abrasive was an important feature of his alleged invention. See Jt.App. at 361a-94a, 423a-29a. Thus, the majority bases their decision on a feature which is not only absent from the claims, but which is also old in the art and irrelevant to the Patent Office rejection under review.
All of the structural elements recited in appellant’s claims are anticipated by the Tocci-Guilbert reference. For example, claim 2 compares with the Tocci-Guilbert patent as follows. The language in claim 2 which is not clearly anticipated by Tocci-Guilbert is italicized.
Appellant’s Claim 2 Tocci-Guilbert Patent
A grinding tool comprising Wheels of the type shown are frequently referred to as “set up” or “snagging” wheels and are widely used in many abrading or polishing operations, such as stripping, plating, snagging work, polishing, light stock removal, and other surface work .... [Col. 8, lines 40-45.] The abrasive foam wheels . . . have been found to be particularly successful in full face grinding operations .... [Col. 7, lines 54-56.]
*155an essentially rigid, dimensionally stable body of cellular polyurethane resin binder A preferred cellular foamed plastic composition for carrying out the invention comprises the group of polyurethane foams. [S]uch foams may be either rigid or flexible, hard and abrasive, or soft and resilient, depending upon components, filters, and methods of foaming. [Col. 10, lines 22-28.]
selected from the group consisting of aromatic polyether polyurethanes and aromatic polyester polyurethanes [T]he commercial “polyurethanes” are . . . polyester or polyether resins and, as such, are more correctly deseibed as poly(ester)urethanes and poly(ether)-urethanes, respectively. The present invention can be satisfactorily practiced with foams of both the poly (ester) urethane or poly (ether) urethane type .... [Col. 10, lines 49-55.]
and granular abrasive dispersed uniformly embedded therein, A substantially uniform dispersal of abrasive grit throughout said body. [Col. 14, lines 36-37, 71-72.]
the grains comprising such abrasive being spaced only slightly apart [See the “void spaces” between the particles of abrasive grit. Col. 8, line 2; col. 14, line 41; figs. 8, 9. ]
and said resin being capable of slightly local stubborn resilient yielding action to an extent allowing corresponding slight local individual movement of said grains exposed to the tool face relative to other adjacent grains in such face, but said body as a whole being sufficiently rigid to support the grinding face of said tool and to make a grinding cut of precise predetermined depth under operating pressures in use, such slight local yielding action of said resin at such grinding face being sufficient to insure readjustment of the positions of individual grains protruding excessively from such face under such operating pressures as to bring such protruding grains into substantially the same The abrasive particles 34 adjacent the work surface, through wear or in the initial molding, frequently present protruding sharp points or projections, as indicated at 84. However, upon application of an abrading or polishing pressure, as in Figure 9, the retractile nature of the grit particles permits these projection points to retract into the void spaces provided by the cells 86, without in any way disturbing the bond between the particles and the cellular foam. The abrasive foam composition thus functions, unlike any other type of abrasive composition, to exert a substantially uniform pressure upon the surface of the work piece. [Col. 7, line 71 to col. 8, line 7.]
*156plane as the other adjacent grains in the portion of the tool face under pressure contact with the work, whereby the work load is sustained by substantially all said grains across such face,
simultaneously to permit the making of a deep precision cut in the work by such face while nevertheless producing a relatively smooth finish thereon without premature dislodgment of such excessively protruding grains from such face. Moreover, with the devices of the invention, this pressure remains substantially the same over a rather wide range of operating pressures, thus insuring substantially uniform scratch patterns throughout such range of operating pressures. [Col. 8, lines 7-11.]
Assuming for purposes of argument that the Tocci-Guilbert disclosure is limited to a “polishing” wheel, the foregoing comparison of claim 2 with the Toc-ci-Guilbert patent demonstrates that the only real difference between the claimed invention and the Tocci-Guilbert structure is the intended use ■ of appellant’s invention for grinding rather than polishing. However, this difference is not a patentable distinction. The “grinding” limitation appears in appellant’s claims only in terms of his intended result. Since the claims recite the same structural elements as Tocci-Guilbert, appellant has failed to identify any inventive structure which accomplishes his allegedly unique result. It is as if appellant claimed “the structure of the Tocci-Guilbert wheel usable for grinding purposes.” Such a claim is unpatentable because it is written solely in conclusory terms and contains no description of any structural difference which enables the known device to be used for the new purpose. See L. Horwitz, Patent Office Rules and Practice § 75.18 (1973); 4 Walker on Patents § 241, at 111 (Deller ed. 1965). One is simply unable to discern any structural difference between Toeci-Guilbert’s “polishing” wheel and the “grinding” wheel as described in the claims. As the Patent Office Board of Appeals commented, “the nature of appellant’s claims are [sic] such as to leave a real doubt as to what appellant believes his invention to be.” Jt.App. at 434a.
The majority’s heavy reliance on the record made in the district court, see Majority Opinion at 15-19, including the testimony concerning commercial success and nonobviousness, does not correct the fatal deficiency of appellant’s claims which fail to specify any structural distinction between the alleged invention and the prior art. The claims are the measure of the invention. Since the validity of the patent depends upon the claims finally acted on by the Patent Office, a substantive defect in the claims cannot be cured by testimony at trial.
The majority opinion necessarily leaves the Patent Office in a quandary. Under the majority decision, the Patent Office is reversed for failing to grant a patent based upon a structural element which does not appear in the claims. The majority apparently expects the Patent Office to search the prior art for every feature of an invention disclosed anywhere in the specification, even though not recited in the claims — a virtually impossible chore for an already overburdened agency. I respectfully dissent from this misinterpretation of the applicable law.