# Application of Raymond J. Heldt

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · November 25, 1970 · 433 F.2d 808

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456183

## Case

- **Full name:** Application of Raymond J. HELDT
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** November 25, 1970
- **Citations:** 433 F.2d 808; 58 C.C.P.A. 701
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rich
- **Judges:** Rich, Almond, Baldwin, Lane, McManus, Northern, Iowa
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9456183

## Opinion text

RICH, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result.
The statutory prerequisite to patent-ability involved here is unobviousness, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made. 35 U.S.C. § 103 . The statute says nothing about the “relative merits” of the invention. Moreover, I do not know to what the merits are supposed to be “relative.” We have ruled that an invention does not have to be “better” to be patentable. 1 Relative to the prior art, and considering the ordinary skill of the art, what we consider is not “merits” but differences and the unobviousness of the invention as a whole taking those differences into account. The “legal standard” is unobviousness. The level of skill is not a standard, it is, in conjunction with the prior art, the base against which unobviousness is measured.
. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 , 46 CCPA 976 (1959).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9456183. Public record. Not legal advice.