Application of Rinehart

531 F.2d 1048 (1976)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Application of Rinehart

United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
531 F.2d 1048 (1976)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

Verne R. Rinehart (plaintiff) claimed to have invented a method of producing a resin known as polymeric ethylene terephthalate (PET) on a commercial scale by heating a dicarboxylic acid with glycol in the presence of a preformed polyester solvent under high pressure. The Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals (the board of appeals) found that the invention was an obvious combination of two patents, known as the Pengilly and Munro patents. Both the Pengilly and Munro patents involved the production of PET by heating a dicarboxylic acid with a low-molecular-weight ester in the presence of a catalyst. The distinction between the two patents was that the Pengilly method utilized atmospheric pressure and a preformed polyester solvent, whereas Munro utilized a higher pressure without the solvent. Rinehart combined the two methods, utilizing both the preformed polyester solvent and higher pressure. Rinehart claimed that this combination successfully achieved commercial scalability. In an effort to rebut a finding that this combination was obvious, Rinehart produced an affidavit with evidence that persons skilled in the resin industry would not have expected successful scaling through the combination of the Pengilly and Munro methods. The affidavit included evidence showing that as the processes in the Pengilly and Munro patents individually were scaled up, problems arose such as longer reaction times and lumps of frozen polymer. The board of appeals nonetheless rejected Rinehart’s patent application. The board of appeals reasoned that Rinehart’s emphasis on commercial-scale production and commercial-scale quantities was insufficient to rebut obviousness. Rinehart appealed to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Markey, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership