missing (on the ground that appellants' application did not disclose substantially the same patentable invention as that disclosed by a patent issued to another) appellants' complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 145 which sought to compel the Patent Office to declare an interference between appellants' application and the patent. APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Affirmed. Spencer B. Michael (Walter J. Blenko, of counsel, pro hac vice) for Lyllian Lighthall, Administratrix, Estate of Albert C. Lighthall, Deceased, et al. Clarence W. Moore (8. William Cochran, of counsel) for Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents. Before EDGERTON, FAHY, and BASTIAN, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a dismissal by the District Court of appellants' complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1958) which sought to compel the Patent Office to declare an interference between appellants' application and a patent granted to one Heritage. The subject matter is the manufacture of composition board which utilizes the bark of coniferous trees as an essential ingredient, and more particularly the cork component of the bark. Appellee contends, and the District Court agreed, that appellants' application did not disclose substantially the same patentable invention as that of Heritage for the reason that the Heritage patent contemplated the complete isolation of the cork component from the rest of the bark, treatment of the cork, and a mixing of the pure cork back into the good fibers as a separate step in the process, whereas appellants' application did not. Upon review of the entire record we think that the District Court applied the correct standard in evaluating the evidence before it, and that its findings are supported by the evidence. Affirmed. [United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit] DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., AND DOUGLAS H. MORETON v. FREDERICK H. MUELLER, SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, AND ROBERT C. WATSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS No. 15,382. Decided April 7, 1960 107 U.S. App. D.C. 321; 754 O.G. 506; 277 F. 2d 351; 125 USPQ 93 1. PATENTABILITY—INVENTION-COMPOSITION OF MATTER-NOVELTY. "*** Moreton's composition is novel. Of course novelty does not amount to patentable invention if the novel composition would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1958)." 2. REVIEW BY THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA— PATENTABILITY-EVIDENCE-RECORD REOPENED. Where on the appeal of an action under 35 U.S.C. 145, the Commissioner contended that the record did not include evidence of comparative tests between applicant's hydraulic fluid composition containing dibutyl phenyl phosphonate and a composition of the reference patent containing dioctyl styrene phosphonate, and applicant asserted that a comparison had been made and that the result showed that the reference composition was inoperative, as the trial court allegedly found, to which the Commissioner countered that the finding of the trial court was that applicant had shown that dioctyl styryl phosphonate in only two of three isomers was inoperative as a hydraulic fluid, and that applicant had "not shown inoperativeness of still another isomer of dioctyl styryl phosphonate"; and where at the trial itself the Commissioner introduced no evidence that there were more than two isomers of dioctyl styryl phosphonate, but after conclusion of the taking of testimony urged there was a third, called di-normal-octyl styrene phosphonate, and argued that applicant had failed to carry his burden of proof, since applicant had not tested this third isomer, Held that denial of a request that the record be reopened to enable applicant to rebut such new contention of the Commissioner was "error in all the circumstances, especially considering the fact that with the use of the two isomers as to which there was test evidence," the reference patent was found inoperative. 3. SAME-SAME-SAME. "When, after trial, the third isomer came on the scene, not by evidence but by briefs, the right to introduce evidence on the subject should have been granted if, as was the case, the decision might have been different if the new evidence should also support the claim of Moreton that Watson was inoperative. In that event the unexpected result achieved by Moreton, though within the general area of Watson, might well be found to have been a combination not obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the prior art, and this, with admitted novelty, would entitle him to a successful outcome of his action in the District Court." APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Reversed and remanded. Gerald H. Peterson (Francis C. Browne, of counsel) for Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., and Douglas H. Moreton. Clarence W. Moore, for Frederick H. Mueller, Secretary of Commerce, and Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents. Before EDGERTON, FAHY, and DANAHER, Circuit Judges FAHY, Circuit Judge: The question comes down to whether the claim of appellants, herein referred to for convenience as Moreton, amounts to patentable invention considered in light of the prior art represented by a patent to Watson, No. 2,636,862. The Examiner and Board of Appeals in the Patent Office ruled against Moreton, as did the District Court after a trial de novo in an action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1958). The appeal is from the judgment dismissing the Moreton complaint. Involved is a chemical composition useful as a hydraulic fluid, particularly in aircraft. Watson's patent was for such a composition. It listed as requirements for hydraulic fuels the properties of inertness, resistance to oxidation, "fluidity over a wide range of temperatures, at least as low as about -40° F. to about -60° F., low volatility at a temperature at least as high as 200° F. or higher and non-flammability." Types of ingredients listed by Watson as producing such a composition include “a mixed alkyl aryl phosphonate, for example an alkyl aromatic phosphonate such as dioctyl stryrene phosphonate.” Listed also by Watson are what are termed viscosity index-improving agents, with special reference to "polymerized methacrylic acid esters." He states that the "esters to be used should have molecular weights from about 5,000 to 25,000 preferably 5,000 to 15,000." The aliphatic alcohols used in making the viscosity index-improving esters have "two to fifteen carbon atoms." Moreton seeks a patent in the same general area of aircraft hydraulic fluid. He specifies a composition of a particular phosphonate (dibutyl phenyl phosphonate) plus a particular polymerized methacrylate (poly alkyl methacrylate), claiming for this composition, inter alia, an adequately high viscosity at high temperatures and a low viscosity at low temperatures, thus providing a distinct improvement and unexpected result over any particular combination specified by Watson. [1] It is true that Watson does not disclose the specific composition claimed by Moreton, so that Moreton's composition is novel.1 Of course novelty does not amount to patentable invention if the novel composition would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. See 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1958). No finding that it would be so obvious was made by the District Court, and there was evidence that the Moreton combination would not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. In this connection the evidence showed that the dioctyl styryl phosphonate, said by Moreton to be disclosed by Watson, when combined with methacrylates used by Moreton, was virtually solid at certain aircraft operating temperatures, that is, was inoperative; whereas Moreton's composition of dibutyl phenyl phosphonate and a poly alkyl methacrylate having from 4 to 6 carbon atoms in the alkyl groups, and lying within a specified limited molecular weight range, was effective as an aircraft hydraulic fluid and unobvious to those having ordinary skill in the art. The Commissioner points out, however that where unexpected superiority over a reference patent-that is "the production of unusual and unexpected results"-is relied upon for patentability, there must 1 The District Court said: "Both plaintiff and the Patent Office agree on the fact that Watson does not disclose the specific composition claimed by the plaintiff and thus this composition does possess novelty." be at least evidence as to comparative tests between the application and the reference, citing Blanchard v. Ooms, 80 U.S. App. D.C. 400, 153 F.2d 651, cert. denied, 329 U.S. 715, and In re Swentzel, 42 CCPA 757, 219 F. 2d 216, which cites Blanchard. [2] The Commissioner contends that the record does not include evidence that a comparison has been made between the fluid composition containing dibutyl phenyl phosphonate and one containing dioctyl styrene phosphonate. Appellant claims that this has been done and that the result showed that the Watson composition was inoperative, as the court found. The Commissioner counters that the finding was that Moreton has shown that dioctyl styryl phosphonate in only two of three isomers 2 is inoperative as a hydraulic fluid, and that Moreton has "not shown inoperativeness of still another isomer of dioctyl styryl phosphonate." 2 We think in the end the question boils down on this aspect of the case to whether it was necessary for Moreton to prove inoperativeness of Watson with respect to the third isomer of dioctyl styryl phosphonate. As to this Moreton contends such inoperativeness should be presumed from the showing in respect of the two isomers. The fact is that at the trial itself the Commissioner introduced no evidence that there were more than two isomers of dioctyl styryl phosphonate, but after conclusion of the taking of testimony urged there was a third, called di-normal-octyl styrene phosphonate. Since Moreton had not tested this third isomer, the Commissioner argued Moreton had failed to carry his burden of proof. Moreton then requested that the record be reopened to enable him to rebut this new contention. The request was denied. We think this was error in all the circumstances, especially considering the fact that with the use of the two isomers as to which there was test evidence, Watson was found inoperative. [3] When after trial, the third isomer came on the scene, not by evidence but by briefs, the right to introduce evidence on the subject should have been granted if, as was the case, the decision might have been different if the new evidence should also support the claim of Moreton that Watson was inoperative. In that event the unexpected result achieved by Moreton, though within the general area of Watson, might well be found to have been a combination not obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the prior art, and this, with admitted novelty, would entitle him to a successful outcome of his action in the District Court. Reversed and remanded. The term "isomers" refers to compounds which are similar in that they are all composed of the same elements united in the same proportion by weight, but different in structure. Here it refers to those phosphonates in which the alkyl group contains eight carbon atoms. The Commissioner urges that the evidence of inoperativeness, to the extent it was attempted to be shown, was insufficiently strong, in any event, but we do not accept this contention in light of the court's finding. On the remand the court in its discretion can permit additional evidence pro and con on this subject. [United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit] UGO MONACO AND MONTECATINI SOCIETA GENERALE PER L'INDUSTRIA MINERARIA E CHIMICA ANONIMA v. ROBERT C. WATSON, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS No. 14,937. Decided August 27, 1959 106 U.S. App. D.C. 142; 756 O.G. 570; 270 F. 2d 335; 122 USPQ 564 1. CIVIL ACTION IN CASE OF INTERFERENCE-35 U.S.C. 135 and 146-COMMISSIONER MAY ISSUE PATENT. "The statute provides that the ‘question of priority of invention shall be determined by a Board of Patent Interferences *** and the Commissioner may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor.' 35 U.S.C. § 135. We think this means just what it says. We see nothing to suggest that applicants who, like these appellants, are adjudged not to be prior inventors, can require the Commissioner to withhold the patent while they sue for it under § 146." 2. SAME-SAME-SAME. "The policy of the statute is clear. The decision of the Board of Patent Interferences is presumably, though not conclusively, correct. If Hoffman, to whom the Board awarded priority, gets the patent, he gets no more than is presumably his. To withhold the patent from him for the benefit of applicants who presumably are not entitled to it would serve no useful purpose. If the appellants win their suit under § 146 their rights will be protected, even if the Commissioner has issued the patent to Hoffman in the meantime, for § 135 provides that a 'final judgment adverse to a patentee *** shall constitute cancellation of *** the patent * * *.” 3. SAME-SAME-SAME-In re Allen NOT CONTROLLING. "Pursuant to In re Allen, 115 F. 2d 936, 28 CCPA 792, the Commissioner withholds patents while appeals from the Patent Office are pending in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. That decision and that practice do not concern us. Appellants' suit under § 146 'is de novo and not an appeal.' Knutson v. Gallsworthy, 82 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 314, 164 F. 2d 497, 507. 'It is an application to the court to set aside the action of one of the executive departments of the Government.' Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U.S. 120, 124." APPEAL from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Affirmed. Harry A. Toulmin, Jr., with whom F. E. Drummond was on the brief, for Ugo Monaco et al. Clarence W. Moore (George C. Roeming, of counsel) for Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents. Before EDGERTON, FAHY, and BURGER, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: Appellants had been the losing parties in a Patent Office proceeding in which the Board of Patent Interferences adjudged a different applicant, Paul H. Hoffman, to be the prior inventor. Instead of appealing to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, appellants elected to sue in the District Court under 35 U.S.C. § 146 to require the Commis |