Application of LeGrice, Patent Appeals No. 6727
Citation | 301 F.2d 929 |
Decision Date | 11 July 1962 |
Docket Number | Patent Appeals No. 6727,6728. |
Parties | Application of Edward Burton LeGRICE. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
John H. Leonard, Cleveland, Ohio (Spencer B. Michael, Smith, Michael & Gardiner, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellant.
Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D. C. (Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for the Commission of Patents.
Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, and RICH, MARTIN, and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK.*
The issue on these consolidated appeals is whether appellant is entitled under 35 U.S.C. 1611 to a patent on each of his applications serial numbers 709,127 and 709,128, filed January 15, 1958, each entitled "Rosa Floribunda Plant." The Patent Office Board of Appeals affirmed the final rejection of both applications under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) on the ground that the inventions had been described in printed publications in England more than one year prior to the dates of filing of the said applications. The publications occur in the National Rose Society Annual of England and in catalogues. The Annual describes appellant as having raised the roses described and the catalogues show color pictures of these roses. There is no dispute that the publications relate to and picture the identical roses which were originated by appellant and which he now seeks to patent.
Resolution of the issue on these appeals requires us to determine whether as a matter of law, the English publications constitute, within the meaning of 35 U. S.C. § 102(b), a bar to appellant's right to patents on said applications.
The applicable portion of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) reads:
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — * * * (b) the invention was * * * described in a printed publication * * * more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, * * *."2
Thus, the statute expressly prohibits the granting of a patent on an invention or discovery which has been "described in a printed publication * * * more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States." Long prior to the inclusion of this provision in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the courts had construed earlier provisions and had interpreted them with regard to what must be described in a printed publication in order for the publication to be a bar to the grant of a patent. The underlying concept on which the courts permitted such a bar is that the description of the invention in the printed publication was sufficient to give possession of the invention to the public.
The express provision of 35 U.S.C. § 161 permits the granting of patents on the particular classes of plants therein enunciated which include "Rosa Floribunda Plants" disclosed in the applications on appeal. Grant of such a patent is, however, "subject to the conditions and requirements" of Title 35 "except as otherwise provided." Thus, appellant's right to patents on his applications is subject to the bar stated in 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), if the publications in issue meet the legal requirements necessary to establish such a bar.
The particular question of law to be here decided is presented on stipulated facts which, insofar as they relate to the issue, are here quoted from the record:
The unique aspects of plants which are the subject of plant patents have posed numerous problems to various tribunals charged with the application of basic patent law concepts thereto. A review of all the reported decisions dealing with plant patents3 establishes that the present case presents a legal problem of first impression on which there are no controlling precedents.
35 U.S.C. § 161 is based on an amendment, effective May 23, 1930, to R.S. 4886, (Sec. 31 of former title 35 U.S.C.), which originated in House Bill 11372 of the Second Session of the 71st Congress. The Committee on Patents which reported the bill filed a report stating:
* * *"
The report expresses the hope that the bill "will afford a sound basis for investing capital in plant breeding and consequently stimulate plant development through private funds". It then goes on to state:
An identical report was filed by the Senate Committee on Patents.
The unique nature of a plant patent was recognized by the Patent Office Board of Interference Examiners in Dunn v. Ragin v. Carlile, 50 USPQ 472 (1941) where at p. 474 it was recognized "The mere filing of an application for a patent for a new variety of plant would not enable anyone to reproduce such a plant."
35 U.S.C. § 161 engrafts the Plant Patent Act onto the basic patent law, which requires us to apply thereto all the rules, regulations and provisions of the basic patent law except that, by the express provision of 35 U.S.C. § 162, a plant patent cannot be declared invalid if its description "is as complete as is reasonably possible."
As indicated by the Committee reports and as provided in the statutory provisions, the law of plant patents is so inextricably bound up with the earlier general patent law that the former cannot be understood without consideration of the latter, and as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 161, the provisions of Title 35 "relating to patents for inventions shall apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided."
It appears, therefore, to have been the intent of Congress that plant patents and patents for other inventions should be subject to the same statutory provisions "except as otherwise provided."
Thus in determining the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as it applies to patents for plants, the first consideration is that Congress did not provide any exception thereto, so it should be presumed that Congress intended that it should be applied to patents for plants as it had been previously applied to patents for other inventions. In other words, we think Congress, by enacting no exception to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) with respect to patents for plants, intended that it be interpreted the same for plant patents as it has been interpreted in relation to patents for other inventions. Otherwise a "discrimination" would continue to exist "between plant developers and industrial inventors," which, as indicated in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc.
...art, and thereby be put in possession of the claimed invention. See In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (CCPA 1980); Application of LeGrice, 49 CCPA 1124, 301 F.2d 929, 939 (1962). See also Downton v. Yeager Milling Co., 108 U.S. 466, 3 S.Ct. 10, 27 L.Ed. 789 57. The description of the printed p......
-
Application of Bergy
...taken literally.9 This court assuredly did not take the comment literally in its opinion ten years later in In re LeGrice, supra 301 F.2d at 939, 49 CCPA at 1139, 133 USPQ at 374, which recognized that under the Plant Patent Act of The patent law, as shown by the Committee Reports, was exte......
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Nabisco Brands, Inc., Civ. A. No. 84-333 LON.
...In Re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 681 (C.C.P.A.1980) (citing In Re Jacobs, 318 F.2d 743, 745-46 (C.C.P.A. 1963)); see also In Re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 933 (C.C.P.A.1962). Therefore, P & G bears the burden of proving that there was no enabling technique in the Railroad Cookie recipe for making a l......
-
Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, In re
...in part as follows:17 Under In re Von Bramer, 127 F.2d 149, 151, 29 CCPA 1018 (1942), before being modified in Application of LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 942, 49 CCPA 1124 (1962), and sharply limited in Application of Brown, 329 F.2d 1006, 1009-11, 51 CCPA 1254 (1964), a prior art diagram depict......
-
Patent Anticipation and Obviousness as Possession
...compound is old, is whether the prior art is such as to place the disclosed 'compound' in the possession of the public."); In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 939 (C.C.P.A. 1962) ("[S]ection 102(b) requires a determination of whether one skilled in the art to which the invention pertains could tak......
-
Chapter §7.04 Enablement Standard for Anticipatory Prior Art
...have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art. Had it been, the prior art reference would anticipate. See In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 939 (C.C.P.A. 1962) (holding that "the proper test of a description in a publication as a bar to a patent as the clause is used in section 102(b) ......
-
Chapter §24.02 Historical Development
...to apply thereto all the rules, regulations, and provisions of the basic patent law," except as otherwise provided. . . . In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 933, 133 USPQ 365, 369 (CCPA 1962); 37 C.F.R. §1.161 (1994). Imazio Nursery, 69 F.3d at 1563–1564 (citations and footnote omitted).[7] See D......
-
Chapter §24.03 Requirements for Plant Patent Protection
...apple (1870) are two examples of clones that have been asexually propagated for many years. Arizona Manual at 17.[41] In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 937 (C.C.P.A. 1962) (citing Samuel L. Emsweller, Fundamentals in Plant Breeding, Plants and Gardens (Summer 1959)).[42] Imazio Nursery, 69 F.3d ......