View source for 1/26/11 : Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb

== Case Summary == 

- The manufacturing process is the patent-material in question (intangible), and the film itself

- This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York (Burke, J., presiding), sustaining the validity of Patent No. 2,398,382, granted to the plaintiff, Lyon, on April 16, 1946, upon an application filed November 17, 1942. Of the nine claims all but 6 and 7 are in suit; the judgment held all seven valid, and the defendant concedes infringement. Judge Burke, in a long and careful opinion, 119 F.Supp. 42, has stated the evidence in such detail that we may, as we shall, assume familiarity with it in our discussion of the issues involved.

- There remains only one other point of enough importance to demand discussion: i. e. whether what Lyon had done before November 17, 1941, — a year before his filing date — forfeited his right to a patent under § 102(b) of the Act: that is, whether he had put it in "public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application". Lyon began to work for the Naval Research Laboratory in January, 1941, trying to find an effective coating.
     - Lyon was questioned of this, and responded with 'the testing procedure' to be the reason why his invention was in public use.  It was tested on gadgets to see if Lyon found an acceptable material.
     The testing was not intended for sale and profit before the issue of the patent.


== Facts of the Case ==

- Patent was held valid


== Class Notes ==

- Cartwright: did research on the manufacture of the same film but abandoned it due to lack of success.  Defendant (the one trying to prove the invalidity of the patent) used Cartwright as saying that the patent is an extension of a previous invention.

- Cartwright's letter proved that he "did conceive that to coat the glass in a vacuum, while heated, made the coating 'very much harder'."

- LEARNED HAND (judge) was very good at what he did, goodwine recommends reading his cases if we get the chance.

- **check written notes on page 5/9 about importance and non-obviousness
     
- Title 35 Section 103: non-obviousness could be defined by: 1)long-felt and 2)unsatisfied need
     check main page on non-obviousness to see fundamental and secondary lines of inquiry