# In re Colin

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · December 29, 1941 · 124 F.2d 219

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6818452

## Case

- **Full name:** In re Colin
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** December 29, 1941
- **Citations:** 124 F.2d 219; 29 C.C.P.A. 757; 52 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 89; 1941 CCPA LEXIS 181
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garrett
- **Judges:** Bland, Gaeeett, Garrett, Hatfield, Jackson, Leneoot
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6818452

## Opinion text

Garrett, P. J.,
concurring.
It is my view that under a fair construction of the patent law there may be circumstances or conditions by reason of which a party who find effective or helpful a process disclosed in prior art but taught in such art to be ineffective or harmful may be entitled to a patent as a discoverer. I think this broad generality admits of no serious challenge and I do not understand the majority opinion to hold otherwise. To entitle one to a patent, however, under such circumstances, obviously the application should definitely show the conditions which render the article or process effective and I am unable to find where that is shown in the instant case. It is pointed out in the majority opinion that the authors of the publication, cited as a reference, to quote the language of the examiner, “cautioned the reader that under a different set of conditions a different result might be obtained.” It is my view that if appellant had definitely pointed out differences in conditions respecting his experiments and developments and phrased his claims ■ accordingly, a different conclusion might be proper, but having failed to do this the conclusion reached by the majority is the correct one.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6818452. Public record. Not legal advice.