# Application of Theodore W. Zierden

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · June 19, 1969 · 411 F.2d 1325

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454627

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Theodore W. ZIERDEN
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** June 19, 1969
- **Citations:** 411 F.2d 1325; 56 C.C.P.A. 1223; 162 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 102
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Baldwin
- **Judges:** Rich, Durfee, Neese, Almond, Baldwin
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9454627

## Opinion text

BALDWIN, Judge
(dissenting in part).
As to composition claim 6, I agree with the majority opinion and decision to affirm.
As to method claims 1 and 2, I would affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation rejection. Claims 1 and 2 are broad enough to read on the very slightest removal and prevention of alluvium deposits in water systems. Thus, if the “industrial waters” of the French patent contain alluvium, even in a very slight amount, 1 then the process of that patent inherently anticipates appellant’s process as claimed here. Viewed in this manner, I do not fee] that the presently claimed process possesses the element of novelty required of a “new use of an old composition.” Perhaps appellant has discovered an unrecognized characteristic, property, or advantage of an old process for treating industrial waters by the addition of a known composition; nevertheless, in my view claims 1 and 2 do not define solely a new process. The obviousness of a method for removing and preventing substantial alluvium deposits in water systems using unfiltered industrial water containing a specified minimum amount of alluvium, is quite a separate and distinct issue from the lack of novelty or inherent anticipation of the process claimed here. The difficulty in this case arises from the breadth of the claims, not the obviousness of the disclosed method. Therefore, as to claims 1 and 2 also, I would affirm.
. It would seem that some amount of “alluvium,” as defined by appellant, is even present in most drinking water.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9454627. Public record. Not legal advice.