Court Opinion

ID: 9450722
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:56:04.135616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.832931
License: Public Domain

RICH, Judge
(concurring).
I agree with the majority because it seems to me that either appellants have not told everything they know about their invention, referring to Judge Smith’s point, or their statement about what they know as to utility is unfounded.
Perhaps they could have made an acceptable case by stating what they did not know and standing on the proposition that their new compound finds its utility as something to experiment with in the field of anti-tubercular activity and veterinary medicine, any research worker knowing how to do that. In re Folkers & Shunk (decided May 6, 1965), 52 CCPA-, 344 F.2d 970, 145 USPQ-.