“The essential inquiry here is whether the advance in the art represented by the invention ... was embodied in a workable device that demonstrated that it could do what it was claimed to be capable of doing.”
How later courts described this case
- “The essential inquiry here is whether the advance in the art represented by the invention ... was embodied in a workable device that demonstrated that it could do what it was claimed to be capable of doing.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur, but with the reservation I expressed in my dissent, reported at 317 *338 F.2d 885 at 886 , that the issues the panel here presumes to decide should have been determined by the court sitting in bcmc and should not have been adjudicated by this panel.