The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D asserted no date of invention prior to P's filing date. On a motion by Hellwarth, a final hearing was set to consider the sufficiency of P's application, and D was granted permission to take the testimony of Dr. Bela Lengyel on that question. P took the testimony of Dr. Arnold Bloom, Dr. Grant Fowles and Paul Rabinowitz in rebuttal. the board recognized, all four witnesses were highly qualified in the laser field at the time they testified. D placed in evidence a number of papers that scientists working in the laser field published beginning in about 1958 and work reports on various TRG projects. D charged, and the board agreed, that P's disclosure was insufficient as of its filing date to enable a person skilled in the art to make an operable laser. The P specification has much disclosure but much work had to be done subsequent to the filing of the application before an operative laser was made. The patent statutes do not contemplate grant of patents for such a disclosure which is merely a fertile field for experimentation. Because the application did not support the claimed invention under §112, priority was awarded to D. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.