Koppers Co v Foster Grant Co     7

"invent" anything but merely reduced that known principle to application Were Sylvania's premise true, its conclusion would inevitably follow But therein lies the defect At best the prior art can be said to disclose that non-planar surfaces were possible as a matter of geometric theory There had been no experimentation concerning application and no procedures taught In this respect the case before us is clearly distinguishable from Koppers Co , Inc v Foster Grant Co , Inc , 396 F 2d 370 (1st Cir 1968) Of course, had Fyler not made his discovery, the art might well have eventually arrived at the same result But arguably inevitable technological progress is not the test United Chromium, Inc v International Silver Co , 60 F 2d 913, 916 (2d Cir 1932)