Court Opinion

ID: 9636638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:36:12.647699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:47.593987
License: Public Domain

BLAND, Associate Judge
(dissenting in part).
I think that the tribunals of the Patent Office were right in holding that there was no lack of diligence on the part of Bru-son shown by the record with reference to the invention of counts 6 and 7. Obviously, Bruson could not make all the tests at one time. Many different experiments in combining many different acids with many different alcohols were required. He employed Robinson and was assured he would be present to help in the experimentation. Robinson came and went to work within a few days after Kyrides entered the field. Bruson continued to experiment with different materials for the purpose of creating esters to be used for the same purpose. The fact that he, on the identical day on which Kyrides entered the field, was not engaged in experimenting with the particular acid or alcohol defined by the counts seems to me to be immaterial. If Robinson had been at work on the date when Kyrides entered the field, it is probable that he would not have been engaged in experimenting with the particular acids involved in the counts.
As I see it, Bruson, at the critical time, was engaged in perfecting his broad invention, and he had taken the diligent step of securing Robinson’s services in finishing the task. The mere, fact that neither of them is shown by the record to have been engaged in experimenting with the particular acid or alcohol involved does not justify the conclusion that there was a lack of diligence on Bruson’s part such as would warrant an award of priority to one who is clearly the second inventor. This is not like a case where a single object requires testing and is laid aside for insufficient reason or without explanation.