DocketNumber: No. 8760
Citation Numbers: 147 F.2d 27
Judges: Miller
Filed Date: 12/26/1944
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/23/2022
In a Section R.S. § 4915
Claims 7 and 9, which, upon oral argument, were selected by appellant as typical, are set out in the margin.
We are satisfied from an examination of the record that the findings of the District Court are amply supported by the evidence. What we have here is no more than a showing of great industry in experimental research, insufficient in itself to constitute invention; the product and the process described by the claims differ from the prior art only in degree; the result, useful as it may be, constitutes, merely, one step forward in a gradual process of experimentation.
We conclude, therefore, that appellant is not entitled to a patent.
Affirmed.
85 U.S.C.A. § 63.
“7. A product comprising a motor fuel and an antiknock material having as its primary antiknock component a mixture of lead tri-methyl-ethyl, lead di-methyl diethyl, and lead tri-ethyl-methyl, in which mixture the concentration of lead dimethyl diethyl predominates.”
“9. A product comprising a motor fuel and an antiknock material having as its primary antiknock component a mixture of lead tri-metliyl-ethyl, lead di-methyl diethyl, and lead tri-ethyl-methyl, and lead tetramethyl in a concentration not exceeding fifteen percent.”
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. 217, 99 If.2d 986, and authorities there cited; L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. V. Coe, 70 App.D.C. 97, 100, 104 F.2d 230, 233; Radtke Patents Corporation v. Coe, 74 App.D.C. 251, 268, 122 F.2d 937, 951; Sinclair Refining Co. v. Coe, 78 U.S.App. D.C. 176, 138 F.2d 673; Potts v. Coe, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 300, 140 F.2d 470, 473.