Graver Tank: Unionmelt has patent for combination of alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium fluoride.
a.    Products
(A)    UM product contains combo of silicates of calcium and magnesium.
(B)    Lincolnweld: Uses silicates of calcium (in small quantities) and Mg instead of Mn.
b.    Prior Art: DOE may not be used to expand a claim to include structures described in prior art.
(A)    Miller: Mn in prior art for use in welding fluxes.
(B)    No evidence that Lincolnweld was developed from independent research or experiments.
(C)    If its general knowledge that x and y are interchangeable after the patent, should they get protection to M + Y if they claimed M + X.?
- L: worry that with technical adv, people can use entire patent, swapping out one ingredient.
c.    2 Dimensions
(A)    Pioneer invention vs not?
(B)    Did UM know it  about Mg/Mn equivalence at time of filing or was it a later advance in technology?
(1)    Best mode: we’re remarkably permissive, don’t have to update it.
d.    Function-Way Result Test = Ask, does accused product perform substantially the same f() in substantially the same way to obtain same result.
- Fed circuit has begun to back away from this rule.
e.    Why don’t we encourage these people to write a better claim?
(A)    Maybe we’re weighing injustices, shame to see their patent completely destroyed with DOE
(B)     Sometimes, though not here, technology wasn’t known at the time of writing.
- Ex. Don’t want velcro attaching eraser to give someone rights to pencil.