International Cellucotton Products Co. v. Sterilek Co., Inc.
94 F.2d 10 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An invention is not patentable if the differences between it and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In determining obviousness, an inventor is imputed to have knowledge of prior art not only in their immediate field but also in all nearly akin fields.
Facts:
- William Bauer obtained a patent for a machine to manufacture catamenial pads.
- Bauer's machine was designed to feed an absorbent filler web and a gauze wrapping web at right angles to each other.
- In Bauer's design, the gauze web moved continuously while filler sections were cut, dropped onto it, and then wrapped.
- A pre-existing machine, patented by Marcus, also made catamenial pads, but its gauze web stopped periodically during the manufacturing process.
- Shortly before Bauer's filing, another inventor named Leibing patented a machine for making excelsior pads (a type of packing material).
- Leibing's machine featured a filler web feeding at a right angle to a continuously moving wrapping web, the same two key features claimed by Bauer.
- The defendant manufactured machines for making catamenial pads that were accused of infringing Bauer's patent.
Procedural Posture:
- William Bauer (plaintiff) filed a suit in equity in federal district court (trial court) against the defendant, alleging patent infringement.
- The district court judge held that the defendant's first machine infringed claims 1, 5, 14, 20, 21, and 31, and found those claims to be valid.
- The district court judge also held that neither of the defendant's machines infringed claim 19.
- Both Bauer and the defendant appealed the trial court's decree to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a patent for a machine that combines features from different prior art sources invalid for obviousness if one source is from the immediate field and another is from a 'nearly akin' field, and the combination would have been apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art?
Opinions:
Majority - L. Hand
Yes, a patent that combines features from prior art in its immediate and a nearly akin field is invalid for obviousness if the combination would have been apparent. The court first affirmed the lower court's finding that the defendant did not infringe Claim 19, as the defendant's continuously moving 'wiper' mechanism was fundamentally different from the 'intermittently actuated' mechanism specified in Bauer's patent claim. The court then reversed the lower court on the remaining claims, holding them invalid for obviousness. An inventor is presumed to have knowledge of all prior art in their own field and in 'all fields nearly akin.' Here, the Marcus patent existed in the same field, and the Leibing patent existed in the 'nearly akin' field of making excelsior pads. Bauer's key innovations over the Marcus machine were the right-angle feed and the continuous movement of the wrapping web. However, both of these features were already present in the Leibing patent. The court reasoned that a person of ordinary skill seeking to improve the Marcus machine would logically look to an adjacent art like making excelsior pads and that combining Leibing's features with the Marcus machine required no uncommon originality or invention. The short time between the publication of the Leibing patent and Bauer's invention further supported the conclusion that the combination was obvious.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of relevant prior art in a patent obviousness analysis, establishing that an inventor is charged with knowledge not just of their specific industry, but also of solutions to similar problems in analogous or 'nearly akin' fields. This broadens the universe of prior art that can be used to invalidate a patent, making it more difficult to patent combinations of existing elements from different technical areas. The case emphasizes that if combining elements from different but related fields is a logical step for a skilled artisan, it lacks the inventive leap required for patentability, regardless of the inventor's actual knowledge.
