Legal Opinion · Dissent

Application of Harry Sponnoble

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals

Decided January 16, 1969No. Patent Appeal 8007Published

1DissentAlmond, Judge

While I agree with the statement of the majority that “patentable invention may lie in the discovery of the source of a problem even though the remedy may be obvious once the source of the problem is identified,” I do not believe that the facts of this case warrant the conclusion that appellant was the first to discover that passage through the center plug was a major cause of moisture transmission.

I feel that the question of “whether the prior art recognized the cause of the problem” must of necessity be answered in the affirmative. Parsons, one of the secondary references employed by the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Application of Leslie E. SoderquistCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964
  2. Application of William F. BillingsleyCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1960
  3. Application of Leo v. BentCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1964

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API