United States v. Adams

383 U.S. 39 (1966)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The '210, was issued in 1943 upon an application filed in December 1941 by P. The invention is a battery that comprises two electrodes -- one made of magnesium, the other of cuprous chloride -- which are placed in a container. The electrolyte, or battery fluid, used may be either plain or salt water. The object of the invention is to provide constant voltage and current without the use of acids, conventionally employed in storage batteries, and without the generation of dangerous fumes. A second object is 'to provide a battery which is relatively light in weight with respect to capacity' and which 'may be manufactured and distributed to the trade in a dry condition and rendered serviceable by merely filling the container with water.' Once activated, the battery continued to deliver electricity at a voltage which remained essentially constant regardless of the rate at which current was withdrawn. Once activated the battery could not be shut off; the chemical reactions in the battery continued even though the current was not withdrawn. The chemical reactions liberated large quantities of heat during operation. The battery was operable from 65 degrees below zero Fahrenheit to 200 degrees Fahrenheit. P filed for a patent and almost immediately introduced his discovery to the Army and Navy. They were not impressed and flat our rejected it. In November 1943, the Signal Corps concluded that the battery was feasible. The battery was found adaptable to many uses. D did not notify P of its changed views nor of the use to which it was putting his device, despite his repeated requests. In 1955, P first learned of D's action. His request for compensation was denied in 1960, resulting in this suit. D introduced in evidence 24 patents and treatises as representing the art as it stood in 1938, the time of P's invention. D claimed that P's patent was invalid on grounds of lack of novelty under § 102(a) and obviousness under §103. D concludes that the prior art shows that magnesium may be substituted for zinc and cuprous chloride for silver chloride. D argues that the 'combination of magnesium and cuprous chloride was not patentable because it represented either no change or an insignificant change as compared to prior battery designs.' The court found for P and the Court of Claims affirmed. D appealed.