# In Re Russell H. McCullough

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · March 14, 1963 · 314 F.2d 570

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449101

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Russell H. McCullough
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** March 14, 1963
- **Citations:** 314 F.2d 570; 314 F.2d 571; 50 C.C.P.A. 1075; 136 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 657; 1963 CCPA LEXIS 398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wokley
- **Judges:** Wokley, Worley, Rich, Martin, Smith, Almond
- **Cited by:** 0 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/9449101

## Opinion text

Wokley, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I am unable to see where appellant has done anything to earn a. patent.
In effect, the majority concludes that the principles of optics relied on by appellant are not expressly taught by the references. It seems to me, however, that those principles, so clearly illustrated in the concurring opinion, would necessarily be basic knowledge to one of ordinary skill in this particular art.
It seems to me that the problem cannot be approached on the theory that those skilled in the art would know only what they read in the' references; they are presumed to know at least the elementary principles of optics as they relate to motion picture projection. I would! affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9449101. Public record. Not legal advice.