1. Patent No. 1,449, 103, to Hayduck, for a process of
propagating yeast in a nutrient solution, with aeration and
neutralization of excess of the acidity liberated from the
components of the solution, is invalid for want of invention over
the prior art. P.
308 U. S.
36.
2. Patent No. 1,449, 105, to Hayduck, for a process of
propagating yeast with a relatively low yield of alcohol by
initiating the propagation in a highly diluted portion of the wort,
aerating that portion, and adding during the period of propagation
the wort of higher concentration at a rate such that the
concentration of the diluted wort remains substantially constant,
whereby substantially all of the alcohol which may be formed is
assimilated -- is invalid for want of sufficient disclosure. P.
308 U. S.
37.
3. Patent No. 1,449, 106, to Hayduck for a combination of the
processes of the above-mentioned two patents is likewise invalid --
the combination requires nothing beyond the skill of the art. P.
308 U. S.
38.
101 F.2d 814, affirmed.
Certiorari, 306 U.S. 627, to review a judgment holding three
patents invalid on an appeal from a decree of the District Court by
which one of them was adjudged valid and the others not, 21 F.
Supp. 46.
MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The order which granted this writ limits our consideration to
the validity of Hayduck patents Nos. 1,449,103, 1,449,105,
1,449,106. 306 U.S. 627. They relate to processes for
manufacturing
Page 308 U. S. 35
baker's yeast, and are owned by the petitioner. It will be
convenient to designate them by the last three figures of their
office numbers -- 103, 105, 106.
All three patents were declared invalid by the Circuit Court of
Appeals below, 101 F.2d 814. In the District Court for New Jersey,
103 had been adjudged valid; 105 and 106 invalid, 21 F. Supp.
46.
The District Court for Maryland, in two causes (Soper, J.), held
the patents valid,
Fleischman Yeast Co. v. Federal Yeast
Corp., 8 F.2d 186,
Standard Brands, Inc. v. Federal Yeast
Corp., 38 F.2d
329. The Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment sustaining 103,
Federal Yeast Corp. v. Fleischmann
Co., 13 F.2d 570. The parties arrived at a settlement, and no
appeal was taken from the second judgment.
Much has been written relative to these patents in the carefully
prepared opinions referred to above. They adequately reveal the
facts and points of law incident to the prolonged disputation.
Irreconcilable views have been approved, and we must now decide
which is to be preferred.
"Yeast is a small cellular micro-organism. In its ordinary
significance, it is a conglomerate mass of infinitesimally small
cells. It multiplies by self-propagation, limited by the means of
subsistence, and the quality and yield are greatly affected by the
conditions under which propagation is carried on. Yeast has been
manufactured for at least 50 years by inoculating a wort -- that
is, by preparing a clear liquid solution and stocking it with a
small amount of seed yeast. Such worts include substances to
nourish the yeast cells, and are called yeast nutrient solutions. .
. . The field for investigation and improvement has been the
composition of the nutrient solution, and the character of the
process employed during the period of growth. "
Page 308 U. S. 36
Nutrient solutions often contain inorganic salts which are
broken down through the growth of the seed yeast. Commonly, this
brings about marked acidity. Growth progresses best in a slightly
acid wort; over-acidity retards or destroys it; aeration of the
wort accelerates growth.
The amount of alcohol consequent upon the growth of yeast cells
has direct relation to the concentration of the wort. When
intensified, the yield of alcohol increases; when lowered, there is
less.
Generally: Patent 103 proposes to neutralize any deleterious
acidity in a wort which contains inorganic salt by adding an
antacid material; patent 105 requires the addition of nutrients
during the growth of the yeast "at a rate such that the yeast may
propagate and substantially all of the alcohol which may be formed
is assimilated by the yeast;" patent 106 combines the
neutralization idea of 103 with the rate of feed proposed by
105.
Claim No. 1 of patent 103, typical of all, follows,
"The process of manufacturing yeast which comprises preparing a
yeast nutrient solution and propagating yeast therein with
aeration, said yeast nutrient solution containing essentially sugar
material and yeast nourishing inorganic salts from which components
are liberated which tend increasingly to acidify the nutrient
solution during propagation, and during the period of propagation
neutralizing the deleterious excess of such acidity."
In respect of this, petitioners' counsel maintain:
"It covers, rather, the integral coordination of propagating
yeast with aeration in a prepared solution containing essentially
sugar material and yeast nourishing inorganic salts from which
results an increasing acidification tending to become deleterious,
and neutralizing the deleterious excess of such acidity in the
solution while the yeast propagation is being conducted. "
Page 308 U. S. 37
The Circuit Court of Appeals below declared:
"We think that it cannot be denied that the use of antacid or
basic materials as neutralizers for acidity in respect to yeast is
old in the art. . . . We think that Hayduck has simply set forth a
technique which is useful in the manufacture of yeast under modern
methods. Hayduck's disclosures do not attain to the dignity of
invention. His process is the result of the exercise of the skill
of the calling, the application of an old principle to a similar or
analogous subject, with no change in the manner of application and
without any substantially different result."
And it accordingly held patent 103 invalid for want of invention
over the prior art.
Considering all the circumstances, and notwithstanding the very
forceful arguments to the contrary, we think this must be accepted
as the better view.
Claim No. 10, typical of patent 105, follows:
"A process of propagating yeast with a relatively low yield of
alcohol which comprises preparing a wort containing all essential
yeast nutrients in solution, initiating propagation of yeast in a
highly diluted portion of said wort, aerating the diluted portion,
and substantially continuously adding during the period of
propagation the wort of higher concentration at a rate such that
the concentration of the dilute wort remains substantially
constant, whereby substantially all of the alcohol which may be
formed is assimilated."
Of this, patent counsel for petitioner say, it
"is directed particularly to this procedural or manipulative,
rather than chemical, aspect of the operation --
i.e., a
division of the wort into two parts with propagation begun in a
diluted fraction and the gradual feeding in of the concentrated
reserve as stated. By adopting this perfected process, the yield of
yeast was still further
Page 308 U. S. 38
increased, and there were also other accompanying advantages in
shortened time from commencement of the yeast propagation to the
harvesting of the yeast crop and in enhanced quantity of output
from a given sized apparatus."
The Circuit Court of Appeals below declared:
"It was well known to the prior art that, if the creation of
alcohol was not desired, the nutrient solution should contain a low
concentration of sugar. . . . In our opinion, the process described
by Hayduck may constitute a mechanical improvement over the prior
art, but it is no more than this. But, even if the process
disclosed by Hayduck be held to constitute invention, the patent is
invalid for indefiniteness, as was held by the learned District
Judge. Both the times and manner in which the concentrated nutrient
solution is to be added may be ascertained, as we have stated,
solely by experimentation. The disclosure of the patent is
therefore too vague and indefinite to constitute invention."
With this conclusion we agree.
As to patent 106 counsel have stipulated:
"The process of this patent is one combining the process of
patent '103, including neutralization, and the process of patent
'105, including regulated nutrient feed."
Since patent No. 103 is invalid for lack of invention, and No.
105 invalid because the disclosure is too vague and indefinite, a
claim for patent based upon the mere union of the two processes
described therein cannot be sustained where, as here, the proposed
combination requires nothing beyond the skill of the art.
The challenged decree must be
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER and MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the
consideration and decision of this cause.