Court Opinion

ID: 9449926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:27:58.993608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:03.273792
License: Public Domain

RICH, Judge
(dissenting).
I join in Judge SMITH’S dissent.
A brief review of the references shows' how far from suggesting the claimed invention they are, taken separately or together.
Brandt is a tablet of writing paper, unperforated, with a hinged cover carrying a blotter. The paper is blank.
Smith is a 3-cheek-to-a-page checkbook, usual in every way except that the left-hand common stub portions of the pages are joined at their top edges.
Weber, the principal reference, is an appointment calendar with left-edge binding, the entire right-hand portion of each sheet being removable as a single unit by virtue of a single vertical line of perforations. The partial cover ends on the line of the underlying perforations. The removable portion is provided as a place to write memos of “things to be done this week.”
Put all of these disclosures together in any desired combination and nowhere will the underlying concept of appellant’s invention either appear or be suggested.
The majority conclusion that “The suggestion to divide the removable [weekly memo] portions of the pages of Weber’s [weekly appointment] book by horizontal perforated lines is clear from the [checkbook] disclosure of Smith” is utterly unfounded. Everyone knows about checkbooks with three checks to a page. Why should such a book suggest to anyone horizontally perforating a page-edge portion entitled “things to be done this week,” especially when it is attached to pages showing all the days of the week ? A sheet of postage stamps would carry as much suggestion as the Smith checkbook, but perforations are not made without reason and the reason here is appellant’s invention.
As to the thought of the majority that the successive dating feature of appellant’s book would be obvious to makers of memorandum books, it becomes obvious by hindsight only after the concept of splitting the right edge into two sections for the very purpose of being able to date them successively. Thus the majority puts the cart before the horse since it is appellant’s invention, not the prior art, which makes it obvious “to do what has been done.”