Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner case brief summary
778 F.2d 775 (1985)
CASE FACTS
Appellee's employees sought a patent on a titanium alloy they developed containing a minimum of iron and small portions of nickel and molybdenum in ratios that made the alloy corrosion resistant. Their application was rejected on the ground that the claims were anticipated or obvious from an article in a Russian metallurgy journal that contained graphs with the same ratios but not describing the resulting corrosion resistance. The lower court held that the patent should have been issued.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision as clearly erroneous. The court determined that the recitation of ranges in the Russian article covered several compositions, including appellee's claims. The court held that the corrosion resistance discovered for a particular range did not change the fact that the article anticipated that range.
CONCLUSION
The lower court's decision authorizing the issuance of a patent to appellee for an alloy with a particular property was reversed because the composition of the alloy was anticipated by an article that described a range of compositions but not the properties of the alloy.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
778 F.2d 775 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant Commissioner of Patents and
Trademarks sought review of a decision of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia authorizing issuance to appellee of a patent
for a titanium alloy.CASE FACTS
Appellee's employees sought a patent on a titanium alloy they developed containing a minimum of iron and small portions of nickel and molybdenum in ratios that made the alloy corrosion resistant. Their application was rejected on the ground that the claims were anticipated or obvious from an article in a Russian metallurgy journal that contained graphs with the same ratios but not describing the resulting corrosion resistance. The lower court held that the patent should have been issued.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, the court reversed the lower court's decision as clearly erroneous. The court determined that the recitation of ranges in the Russian article covered several compositions, including appellee's claims. The court held that the corrosion resistance discovered for a particular range did not change the fact that the article anticipated that range.
CONCLUSION
The lower court's decision authorizing the issuance of a patent to appellee for an alloy with a particular property was reversed because the composition of the alloy was anticipated by an article that described a range of compositions but not the properties of the alloy.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment