Court Opinion

ID: 9445819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:38:31.039417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:24.800866
License: Public Domain

BURGER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent because I think it is unsound to say that as a matter of law “the word ‘film’ by itself does not connote a particular use * * *
The statute1 requires a description of utility which is sufficient “to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains * * * to * * * use the same * * Appellant offered to prove by expert testimony, i. e., “persons skilled in the art” that they understood what the term meant; in other words, that as used in the specification the term disclosed an obvious use and utility, especially when considered in light of the chemical properties ascribed to the substance by the specification. The District Court should have permitted appellant an opportunity to make good on this offer of proof and then evaluated the testimony before deciding the case.

. 35 U.S.C. §112 (1952).