Application of Noel F. Albertson

It is with regret that I find it necessary to dissent from the majority opinion and to write what may well be called the third movement in the requiem for the “new use of a known process” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 100(b).1 The new use provision, as stated in the Patent Act of 1952, had a bright promise and might well have emancipated the patent law from the shackles with which traditional claim forms had enslaved it. With the present decision, I fear that bright promise is dead.. The first movement will be found in my dissent in In re Larsen, 292 F.2d 531, 49 CCPA 711; the second in my dissent…