Court Opinion

ID: 9471528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:34:45.634878+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:27.170538
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part.
Although I agree with the majority’s analysis and holding on the fraud issue, it seems appropriate to state my conclusion that, because of the unpredictability of pro-panil in 1957, the district court erred in granting R & H an April 4, 1957, date of conception rather than a date, concurrent with a reduction to practice, in the summer of 1957 — after the May 27, 1957, date of filing of Monsanto’s application, so that the Monsanto patent constitutes a 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) bar to the R & H patent. Alpert v. Slatin, 305 F.2d 891, 896, 134 USPQ 296, 301 (CCPA 1962).