Court Opinion

ID: 9448288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:30:01.371214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:21.724326
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
While I agree with the majority that claims 9 and 10 for packaging the tinsel *255are obvious over the Clune reference, I cannot agree with its conviction that the appellants’ invention, the tinsel itself, as claimed in claims 1 to 8 and 17 to 19 inclusive, is obvious over the other prior art cited.
Appellants’ invention is a modification of old products which creates a new and commercially better product. It is this category which Judge Learned Hand described as:
“ * * * one jn -which the inventor has culled this and that out of nearby arts, and so formed a combination nowhere before existing. It has been a success; it has substantially driven out earlier cumbersome methods, it has enabled the art to do with ease what before it could only do slowly and imperfectly. The result seems to us a genuine invention, and we so hold.” [Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., 18 F.2d 66, 68, 69 (C.C.A.2d), cert. denied, 274 U.S. 753, 47 S.Ct. 765, 71 L.Ed. 1333.]
The majority has not analyzed the invention in the manner prescribed by Judge Hand in Traitel Marble Co. v. U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co., supra:
“ * * * We are to judge such devices, not by the mere innovation in their form or material, but by the purpose which dictated them and discovered their function. * * * ”
The “purpose” which dictated the appellants’ invention, as explained in their specifications, was that Christmas tinsel, as was commonly used, had several disadvantages. It was flammable; it was not strong and was subject to matting, making it unattractive for reuse; and the lead strips presented a potential poison hazard to children. With these problems in mind, appellants perfected a tinsel composed of a halogen-containing polymer with a thin metallic coating which was non-flammable, did not mat and was non-toxic. The references cited by the board in its rejection do not disclose such a “staple” having the above combination of characteristics.
The affidavit of Prindle aptly points out the unobviousness of appellants’ discovery that their thin metallic coating was non-flammable. I disagree with the board in its assumption that the claimed invention relates to an “old thing.” The thing claimed is “a tinsel staple” of a new type. In its decision, the board merely states:
“We have considered appellants’ allegation, on page 2 of their brief, that they have discovered the “wholly unexpected and unpredictabie characteristic” of the claimed material, viz., its noninflammability, which adapts it for its intended use. We have also considered the Prindle affidavit in this respect. However, we are not persuaded by this factor, since an increase in knowledge of its properties cannot render an old thing patentable.”
i do not agree with either the board or wjth the majority that there is “no doubt” that the invention claimed is obvious over the references cited. I have considerable doubt as to its “obviousness” and am, therefore, willing to resolve that doubt by the showing of commercial success of appellants’ invention which is amply presented in the record by appellants’ exhibits D through F aad affidavits of Ely and Campbell1 E7lden(;e of commercial success should, in a dose case tip the scales m favor of Patentability. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. et al. v. RAY-O-VAC Co., 321 U.S. 275, 279, 64 S.Ct. 593, 595, 88 L.Ed. 721 (1944).
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the decision of the Board of Appeals in rejecting claims 1 to 8 and 17 to 19.

. I also take judicial notice that tinsel manufactured by appellants or by a lieensee thereof is currently being sold at a number of retail stores herein the Nation’s capital,