# William E. Phillips v. Edward E. Lynch and John J. Larew

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · October 27, 1966 · 367 F.2d 601

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452236

## Case

- **Full name:** William E. PHILLIPS, Appellant, v. Edward E. LYNCH and John J. Larew, Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** October 27, 1966
- **Citations:** 367 F.2d 601; 54 C.C.P.A. 781
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Smith
- **Judges:** Rich, Martin, Smith, Almond, Kirkpatrick
- **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/9452236

## Opinion text

SMITH, Judge,
(concurring, with whom MARTIN, Judge, joins).
It is clear from a reading of the respective specifications before us that we are dealing with inventions having different embodiments in electric power control systems. The counts in issue, however, are not drawn to the specific systems disclosed but include several “means” clauses.
Thus, the “invention” defined by the counts is much broader than the specific embodiments disclosed in the respective specifications. It is the “invention” as defined by the counts which must be considered in resolving the issue before us: does appellant’s specification disclose the “invention” defined by the count? Both parties have urged us to examine both specifications in resolving the issue. Doing so I find that the result reached by the majority is correct. The invention as defined in the counts, when considered in relation to the respective specifications, warrants the majority in reversing the decision below. I therefore concur in this result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9452236. Public record. Not legal advice.