Application of Borst
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
345 F.2d 851 (1965)
Borst (plaintiff) sought a patent application for a system that would increase the safety of nuclear reactors by varying a small neutron input source to effectively control a large neutron output. The United States Patent Office rejected Borst’s application on the basis of an unpublished memorandum authored by Samsel in 1947. The Samsel document was initially considered classified information and was unavailable to the public until 1957. Nevertheless, the patent office believed the Samsel document constituted prior art and contained information that anticipated the claims in Borst’s patent application. As a result, Borst’s patent application was denied. Borst appealed the denial.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.