Court Opinion

ID: 9447175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:27:57.733077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:55.823503
License: Public Domain

McALLISTER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Judge Allen, in her usual able fashion, with the searching and illuminating mind of a great patent judge, has so fully stated the facts and presented the issues in this complex case, that a dissent to the conclusions expressed by her requires no additional, or counter statement of the controversy.
The difference in our views is to be found in the well-tilled field of an area of patent law that is teeming with hundreds of adjudications embodying conflicting opinions: of when a patent is invalid for want of invention; and of when a patent is invalid because it is for a mere conjunction of old parts, which, in aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them.
It seems to me that the Molitor patent is invalid for want of invention. Admittedly, the elements of his combination were old: the use of vinyl resin and plastisol; deaeration of the plastisol pri- or to molding; rotational casting; use of a non-porous mold. It is argued by appellee that no prior use involved depositing a measured charge of a liquid mixture of vinyl resin and plastisol in a closed hollow mold with a charge less in volume than the volume of the mold; that the combination of rotating the mold in a multiplicity of planes and simultaneously heating the material to gell it against the inner surface of the mold, while the mold was rotating, was new; and that the step of cooling the temperature of the material in a closed mold below the fusion point after the material had been gelled on the inner surface of the mold, and fused, was new.
To me; it appears most significant that Molitor’s success was contemporaneous with his use of the new Goodrich polyvinyl material, “Geon Paste Resin 100X210.” This was the substance that, when heated between 325° and 350° F., resulted in the fusion of the resin and plasticizer. This differed from the prior “slush molding,” since there was no waste liquid remaining. According to the Bulletin of the Goodrich Company: “The plasticizer serves as a vehicle to carry the resin particles, and remains as a separate liquid or external lubricant. Upon heating, plasticization takes place, with the liquid plasticizer being absorbed by the resin. This ‘fusion’ forms a tough, homogeneous and flexible mass.” Obviously, then, the charge in each mold, of the Goodrich material, would be less than the volume of the mold, unless it were sought to make a solid article, rather than a hollow one— while, with “slush molding,” more of the plastic substance would be poured in each mold — in fact, each mold would be filled —since there would be a liquid residue remaining after the plastic substance had gelled against the inner surface of the mold. Yet the method of “slush molding” was akin to the molding practiced by Molitor, with the Goodrich resin.
Molitor, himself, testified that, in the fall of 1947, he was working on “slush” castings, when he first received from the Goodrich Company, the new polyvinyl material, “Geon Paste Resin 100X210.” Molitor testified: “I was particularly satisfied with the 100X210, and I stayed with that.” The conclusion seems clear that he thereupon gave up slush molding, and “stayed with” the Goodrich material that fused, instead of leaving a liquid residue.
It would seem that the Delacoste patent process taught what Molitor professes to teach — certainly, at least, with the use of the Goodrich material, “Geon Paste Resin 100X210.” The District Court said that one step missing in Delacoste, and essential to produce the article, is the recognition of the temperature change to accomplish the transition of the material from gel to fusion; and *246that, without considerable experimentation and a search for disclosures in the wide field of heat treating, time exposure, and range of temperatures, together with the failure clearly to define the types and composition of material required to make the character of article intended, leaves Delacoste without effective force as anticipation. It is also argued that the step of cooling the temperature of the material in a closed mold below'the fusion point after the material had been' fused, Was new.
All of the foregoing seems to overlook the fact that the Goodrich Bulletin of September 2, 1947, stated that to accomplish the fusing of the material, “Geon Paste Resin 100X210,” it ,was necessary to heat the mass to temperatures of 325° to 350° F.; and, also, that the instructions furnished by the supplier of the resin, told how to use it to secure the best results of the fused products.
Robert C. Sessions, appellee’s expert witness, was asked, on cross-examination, the following question, and , gave the answer indicated:
“Q. How about the instructions the person practicing Delacoste would get from the supplier of the plastisol? I understand it is admitted here by plaintiff plastisol was old. Now, why wouldn’t the man skilled in the art use the instruction given by the person providing the plastisol? A. He probably would and could use the instructions provided by the person.”
As to the failure to define the types and composition of material required to make the character of article intended, counsel for appellee was interrogated by the court, during the trial, as to this question of the composition of the material:
, “The Court: You don’t claim any novelty for this mixture ?
“Mr. Ely: I say this, the making of the mix is an important step in the process.
“The Court: In one of the claims ?
“Mr. Ely: No. Our claim says a mixture of polyvinyl resin and a plasticizer.”
The 1947 Bulletins of the Goodrich Company and their instructions as to how to use the “Geon Paste Resin 100X210,”' together with the old elements used by Molitor, account for Molitor’s success but, in my opinion, do not raise his conception to the level of invention. Great, Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162.
As to the patent of Martin, et al., for the apparatus for the manufacture of hollow cast articles, it is my view that under the decisions of this court in General Motors Corp. v. Estate Stove Co., 6 Cir., 201 F.2d 645, and General Motors Corp. v. Estate Stove Co., 6 Cir., 203 F. 2d 912, following the Supreme Court in the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. case, supra, it embodies a mere conjunction of old parts which, in aggregation, perform or produce no new or different operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them.
Molitor and Martin combined to accomplish the manufacture of excellent products in a single operation without damaged material or scrap, and reduced the time of operation from a day to fifteen minutes, with immense reduction of labor cost. In the years before the Supreme Court decision in the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. case, the determination of this court in the instant case would probably be unanimous, to sustain the judgment of the District Court. In the light of that decision, I am of the' opinion that the patents are invalid.
On Petition for Rehearing
ALLEN, Circuit Judge.
A petition for rehearing addressed only to'the Molitor patent No. 2,629,134 has been filed herein. It attacks the opinion and judgment of this Court affirming the District Court's holding that Molitor is valid. The majority of the *247"Court consider the matters adduced not to be ground for granting a rehearing.
A vigorous attack is made upon the •Court’s history of this controversy. It is said that various statements made in the opinion have no support in the record. Many of the statements now objected to were made by appellants’ witnesses; for instance, appellants’ witnesses testified that Molded Latex had a shrinkage of 20% linearly and about 50% by volume. Ficarra said that in latex you would get almost 40% by volume shrinkage. During Ficarra’s experiments with plastisols, Molded Latex was manufacturing products from latex. His notebook also showed work on slush molding.
It is asserted that this Court has no ■authority to describe the relevant events in the case. It is established law that the findings of the District Court cannot be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.
This does not mean that the Court of Appeals in affirming a judgment of the District Court cannot draw inferences from written and undisputed facts. This Court has approved the findings and ■affirmed the judgment of the District Court with one exception not questioned here. The facts were partly documentary and the evidential facts presented in the opinion were in the main not disputed. The dispute is as to the inferences to be drawn from the facts. Under such circumstances Courts of Appeals are authorized to draw their own infer•ences from the evidence. Stubbs v. Fulton Nat. Bank of Atlanta, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 558, certiorari denied 325 U.S. 864, 85 S.Ct. 1202, 89 L.Ed. 1984; Iravani Mottaghi v. Barkey Importing Co., 2 Cir., 244 F.2d 238, certiorari denied 354 U.S. 939, 77 S.Ct. 1402,1 L.Ed.2d 1538.
It would be unfortunate if the Court -of Appeals could not summarize material incidents not fully discussed below, particularly where, as here, a meager factual ■ explanation on certain points was given ¡in this court by counsel on both sides.
The Molitor patent was found to be valid on extensive hearing in the trial court which not only included testimony of experts, but also afforded the District Court the opportunity to view moving pictures of the operation. The claims describe a combination. The use of an old element does not invalidate a combination if the combination is new. This record contains the testimony of a highly qualified expert that the use of the closed mold, the rotation of the mold in a multiplicity of planes, and the simultaneous heating of the mixture to gel it against the inner surface of the mold is new, and cooling of the temperature below the fusion point of the material in a closed mold in this combination is new. The result is certainly new.
Appellants in their petition for rehearing repeatedly overlook the fact that this Court adopted the finding and conclusion of the District Court on this all-important point, and make statements of fact which are highly inaccurate because the testimony, or purported statements from our opinion are distorted by being taken out of context and condensed without recognizing that the opinion is speaking of a combination. Thus appellants say this Court stated that cooling in the mold is new. What the Court said was that cooling in a closed mold, together with other elements of the combination, was new. Appellants say in effect that Molitor admitted gelling, fusing and cooling the mixture within the same mold were old in the art in 1949. The testimony referred to was given in December, 1957, in answer to a question which asked Molitor to tell “the regularly accepted normal way of slushmolding.” The answer evidently related to slush molding in 1957, after much of the industry had switched from rubber to plastic and was aware of the Molitor process. The switch at Arrow occurred in 1953. The answer did not relate to slush molding in 1949 and 1950.
The petition for rehearing says: “The opinion states that the early commercial resins were ‘not satisfactory’ ”. What the opinion actually says is that Ficarra, *248appellant’s witness “stated that the commercial materials then available * * * were not satisfactory”. Ficarra also said in effect that his work consisted in trying to formulate better products in that line. Attributing the statement quoted above in the petition for rehearing to the court, instead of to Ficarra, is another instance of the inaccuracies with which the petition is replete.
Appellants’ contention that the admissions of Molitor are directly contrary to the holdings of the opinion is one example of distortion. Molitor is credited by this Court with devising a combination in which many features are concededly old. To support their assertion that Molitor has admitted the contrary of the Court’s findings, appellants tack testimony of Molitor given in December, 1957, as to the nature of slush molding, on to plaintiff’s answer to an interrogatory which states that in 1949 Sun Rubber employed slush molding techniques in casting small squeeze bulbs.
In slush molding of rubber products as well as in slush casting of metals (Metal Castings, p. 245, Joe L. Morris, 1957) the so-called “in and out” method, the step of discarding the excess material, pouring it in and then out of the mold, is important and apparently is still retained. The mold is therefore not closed.
In 1957 slush molding evidently had taken on certain elements of Molitor. The switch by much of the industry to plastics from rubber occurred shortly before and around this time. In 1953 Arrow Rubber and Plastic Corporation, for instance, substituted use of the vinyl resins in 80% of its business, formerly all slush molding. It was during this period that 47 Miller machines were sold to practise Molitor. The contention that evidence as to use of vinyl resins in a slush molding technique in 1949, may be carried over to a statement made in December, 1957, as to the then status of slush molding and that the two statements taken together amount to an admission that in 1949 slush molding presented the main elements of Molitor, has no merit.
Appellants also challenge the conclusion of the majority of the Court that Molitor teaches the blending of the materials in the casting batch in the mold, while Goodrich Bulletins Nos. I and II suggest blending of these materials outside of the mold. Bulletin No. I states that after the resin and plasticizer have been blended, the mixture may be molded. Bulletin No. II points out that “the plasticizer serves as a vehicle to carry the resin particles and remains as a separate liquid or external lubricant. Upon heating plasticization takes place with the liquid plasticizer being absorbed by the resin.” The Goodrich Rubber Co. did not use the term “mix”. It used the term “blend” presumably with the knowledge that a blend is different from a mixture. The product is offered for sale as a paste. Evidently the materials of the paste have progressed beyond the point of mixture where the plastisol remains as a separate liquid or external lubricant.
It is not, as stated by appellants, undisputed in the record that “in the accused practises the resin and the plasticizer are not blended” in the molds, as in Molitor, but “in a vessel separate and apart from them.” The Molitor patent, Column I, is the only reference given for this extremely inaccurate statement. Appellant National conceded that it infringes Molitor if it is valid, and the accused practises therefore are conceded by National to be the practises of Molitor. The District Court found National guilty of infringement. Presform has been adjudged guilty of infringement and in this appeal does not contest that issue. The test of what the accused practises do, therefore, is what is done in Molitor.
The Molitor patent specification does not use the word “blend” nor does it show blending of materials before entering the-mold. The specification provides for the-preparation of the casting batch by thorough mixture “in any suitable vessel”— “equipped with a power driven stirrer”*249In order to thoroughly wet the dry powders the batch is agitated in the vessel and when it is thoroughly mixed the cover is clamped tightly on the vessel and the speed of the agitation is increased in order to remove air from the interior of the vessel and from the batch through a source of vacuum. No heat is employed during this process and heat is first specified after the material is placed in the mold.
It is the essence of the “blending” operation that the “separate things mixed cannot be distinguished”. Synonyms of “blend” are “merge”, “coalesce”, and “fuse”. (Webster’s New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1955.) The same authority defines the synonyms as follows:
“Merge” — “To be sunk, swallowed up, or lost; to lose identity by absorption or immersion in something else.”
“Coalesce” — “To grow together, to unite in one body or product.”
“Fuse” — “To unite or blend as if melted together.”
In Molitor, prior to the application of heat, the plasticizer remains in liquid or lubricant form and the blending is not achieved. This is undisputed. A qualified expert testified that as the temperature is raised to 350° “the liquid plasticizers, liquid material of the casting batch, enters into and merges with the fine particles, or finely divided particles of the resin that is in the plastisol casting batch; and when that process is completed or substantially completed the material has been fused.” The blending and fusing in Molitor occurs upon the heating of the mold. Goodrich Bulletins Nos. I and II are in accord. Bulletin No. I states that “until the temperature is raised, the plasticizer remains as a separate liquid or external lubricant for the resin”. Exactly the same statement is made in Bulletin No. II.
While the word “blending” is not used in the Molitor claims, each one provides for heat while rotation is going on and thus shows that heat is used to drive the plasticizers into the resin after the insertion of the material in the mold. The teaching of the blending operation in the mold is implicit in the Molitor claims.
If we are in error upon this point which we have discussed somewhat at length because of the meager information given by counsel, the majority of the Court is still convinced that this contention has no merit for other material reasons. As pointed out in the opinion, the third Goodrich Bulletin upon which appellants most heavily rely is not anticipation under the statute. 35 U.S.C. § 102. It was published August, 1949, within the year before Molitor’s filing date of June 27, 1950. The first two Bulletins contain general suggestions as to the use of the Goodrich resins in molding, calendering solution, and latex techniques; in Bulletin No. I, The Goodrich Rubber Co. expressly warns that the product recommended is “still a pilot plant product”. The two Bulletins fail to attain the degree of definiteness necessary to constitute anticipation. They contemplate the use of separate equipment. They did not teach the appellants’ expert witness, Ficarra, spending 90% of his time on vinyl resins, try as he would, how to devise a process which would obtain the result of Molitor.
The error in the opinion with reference to the names of National Latex Products Co. and Molded Latex Products Co. has been corrected. It in no way affects the question as to whether the sale of doll’s heads ordered by Imperial Crown Toy Corp., in April, 1950, was or was not a prior use.
Modern Plastics Encyclopedia, both for 1959 and 1960, may be found in the Cleveland Public Library.
The petition for rehearing is denied.