Court Opinion

ID: 9443088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:10:46.535393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:22.198226
License: Public Domain

*143WASHINGTON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) .
I regret the necessity of dissenting in this case. The right of an inventor to a patent was a subject of express constitutional concern, Article I, § 8, and has long been safeguarded by congressional legislation. In our own day, the obtaining of an important patent is one of the few remaining ways in which an individual can by intellectual and scientific endeavor obtain substantial monetary rewards. The encouragement of inventive activity is a function not only of the Patent Office hut of the courts; neither should be reluctant to recognize a real contribution to science and the arts. But the contribution must possess distinct and substantial originality.
In experimenting with internal combustion engines, Broderson was working in a highly developed field. The specific objectives which he sought to achieve — elimination of knock and operation at constant pressure over wide power demands — have been the goals of many inventors. Broderson admittedly employs known elements of design and operation. It seems evident that he could not obtain a design patent, nor has he asked for one. He is seeking a method patent. But if a design patent is not obtainable, the grant of a method patent having the practical effect of establishing a monopoly over the design would certainly be unwarranted. Further experimentation should not be thus inhibited. And the Supreme Court has recently pointed out the caution which the courts must observe in ascribing patentability to an assembly of previously known elements. Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162.
The prior art cited by the Patent Office, as embodied in some thirteen patents,1 indicates the number and variety of devices which have been used by Broderson’s pred- • ecessors. Only three of these patents— Mock, Werner, and the British Patent No. 373, 647 — were specifically relied on by the Board of Appeals and the District Court in rejecting the application, and only those three were urged upon us in appellee’s brief. These are the prior patents discussed by the majority of the court. All thirteen, however, were reviewed by the Patent Office examiner, cited by the Board of Appeals and presented to the District Court and this court. They form a part of the record on which the application must be considered. I do not agree with the majority’s restricted characterization of the teachings of the three mentioned patents. But even if that characterization were correct, that should not he the end of the matter. We ought not, after considering only these three patents, authorize issuance of a patent which could not he sustained on the basis of the additional references.2 To do so would be both wasteful and contrary to the public interest. The patent so granted would not withstand a subsequent challenge, and in the meantime might well hinder further development. The present litigation is one in which the public has an interest; we cannot judge it as if it were a private battle *144between the applicant and the Commissioner.
The inventiveness claimed for Broderson’s idea is, in the words of the majority, “two simultaneous homogeneous mixtures of fuel and air;3 * * * constant pressure in the cylinder and a mixture of ignitable proportions always at the spark plug, although the fuel is varied according to power demand; and * * * the arrangement and combination of known features of design and standard elements of operation to achieve these new and novel results.” Most of these aspects of the method are concededly well-known.4 The only real question is whether Broderson’s means for assuring that there will always be an ignitable mixture adjacent to the spark, while the richness of the mixture at other points in the combustion space is varied with power demand, constitutes a patentable invention.
The idea of securing a rich mixture at the point of ignition and a leaner mixture elsewhere is revealed in at least three prior patents.5 While it is true that these earlier devices do not make use of two chambers, that element of design is old in the art.6 The fact that Broderson segregates the rich mixture largely in one chamber while supplying a variable mixture to the other does not, I think, provide a sufficient element of novelty to warrant a patent. Suppose that Broderson had used two fuel injectors, one in each of his combustion chambers, to secure the mixture distribution which he claims to have achieved by the use of only one injector. He would have “two simultaneous homogeneous mixtures,” but this would hardly constitute invention in view of the common prior use of multiple injectors and chambers to obtain whatever fuel apportionment happened to be desired.7 His application is not saved by having only one injector and by accomplishing apportionment by means of the timing of the fuel injection plus the flow of air between the chambers. Variations in injection timing and use of air flow or turbulence to achieve a desired type of fuel-air mixture distribution are both well known to the art.8 Broderson has shown skill and imagination in his use of known methods in order to achieve the effect he desires. *145Ingenuity is not, however, a substitute for invention.
For these reasons, I have not been convinced either that the Patent Office misunderstood and undervalued Broderson’s contribution 9 or that he himself has claimed it in a form which sufficiently distinguishes it from the prior art. To me the reasonable basis for the Patent Office’s rejection of Broderson’s application is clear. The finding of such a basis, of course, is all this court can be concerned with; if it exists, we cannot order the issuance of a patent.10 From the nature of Broderson’s application and the field with which he is concerned, and from the finding against him by the Patent Office, there has devolved upon appellant an onerous burden. In my view he has failed to sustain it.

. These are as follows:
Yost, et al. 1,096,585 May 12, 1914
Power 1,235,725 Aug. 7, 1917
Werner 1,616,157 Feb. 1, 1927
Hesselman 1,835,490 Dec. 8, 1931
Wild, et al. 2,005,063 June 18, 1935
Starr 2,025,362 Dec. 24, 1935
Bremser 2,061,826 Nov. 24, 1936
Mock 2,142,280 Jan. 3, 1939
Dillstrom 2,145,250 Jan. 31, 1939
Chapman 2,204,068 June 11, 1940
British Patent 195,609 Jan. 31, 1924
British Patent 373,647 May 17, 1932
Swiss Patent 208,611 May 16, 1940

. The necessary implication of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hill v. Wooster, 132 U.S. 693, 10 S.Ct. 228, 33 L.Ed. 502, is that the District Court must not authorize issuance of a patent after overturning a Patent Office ruling unless it finds affirmatively that the claims are in fact patentable; further, in determining patentability, the court must consider any material brought to its attention whether or not the Patent Office’s decision was based thereon. Cf. Knutsen v. Gallsworthy, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 304, 308-308, 313-314, 164 F.2d 497, 499-501, 506-507. And this court has on occasion gone to the length of consulting material entirely outside the record in order to inform itself regarding the prior art. See Radtke Patents Gorp. v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 251, 270, 122 F.2d 937, 956, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 695, 62 S.Ct. 410, 86 L.Ed. 556.

. Broderson himself claims a “controlled stratification of the fuel.” Claim 1 of his application is typical, and reads as follows: “1. The method of operating a four-cycle internal combustion engine which comprises admitting constant charges of air to the combustion space of the engine including a main combustion chamber and an auxiliary combustion chamber communicating with the main combustion chamber through a restricted passage and having a volume not substantially exceeding the volume of the main combustion chamber at top center position of the piston, compressing the air within the combustion chambers, supplying to the combustion chambers controlled charges of fuel varied in amount in relation to the power demand upon the engine, injecting into the auxiliary combustion chamber during the compression stroke of the piston controlled portions of said charges of fuel varied in amount in predetermined relation to the total quantity of fuel supplied to effect a controlled stratification of the fuel between the auxiliary combustion chamber and the main combustion chamber and to provide in the auxiliary combustion chamber at the time of ignition an ignitable fuel mixture under all conditions of power demand irrespective of variation in composition of the fuel-air mixture obtained in the main combustion chamber, and igniting the mixture under compression in the auxiliary combustion chamber.” (Emphasis added.)

. It is not strenuously urged that the use of constant air pressure constitutes invention, nor can it be in view of the earlier patents embodying this feature. E.g., Starr, Bremser, Mock. In Bremser and Mock, the feature of constant air intake is not express, but each patent uses an air intake valve apparently without a throttling mechanism. Bremser, like Starr, provides for concentration of' fuel density at the spark plug to assure ignition. See Bremser application, p. 1, col. 1, li. 27-30, and claims 6 and 19.
Variation of fuel with power demand, of course, is a principle on which the usual Otto-type engine operates.

. Starr, Bremser, Mock.

. See Chapman, "Weber; cf. Werner.

. Ibid; and cf. British Patent No. 195, 609.

. Mock, Bremser, Chapman, Starr, Hesselman.

. I do not think controlling the Board of Appeals’ failure to mention expressly what the majority considers as the “essence” of the claimed invention, especially in view of the patent examiner’s explicit treatment of the point. App. 156-157, 166-161.

. See Besser v. Ooms, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 154 F.2d 17; Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 210, 181 F.2d 280.