Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

In re Ratti - 46 C.C.P.A. 976, 270 F.2d 810 (C.C.P.A. 1959)

Rule:

The statutory requirements for patentability, broadly stated, are novelty, usefulness and unobviousness, as provided in 35 U.S.C.S. §§ 101102, and 103

Facts:

An applicant filed for a patent on an "Oil Seal" for sealing the space between a bore in a housing and a relatively movable shaft centrally located in the bore, which was denied by the board of United States Patent Office. The applicant appealed the order of the board.

Issue:

Should the patent be granted?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The district court reversed the board's decision. The district court held that an applicant was entitled to a patent, under the statutes, unless one of the prohibitory provisions of the statutes applied. According to the court, the statutory requirements for patentability, broadly stated, were novelty, usefulness and unobviousness, as provided in 35 U.S.C.S. §§ 101102, and 103. The district court then held that the board committed error when it considered matters outside of §§ 101102 and 103. The district court further held that the intent of Congress was that patentability was to be determined solely by the provisions of §§ 101102, and 103.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class