The best mode requirement is satisfied when the inventor includes the preferred mode in the specification. “There is no requirement in 35 USC 112 that an applicant point out which of his embodiments he considers his best mode; that the disclosure includes the best mode contemplated by the applicant is enough to satisfy the statute.”
Background / Facts: The patents here relate to the dispensing of objects such as rivets through a pressurized tube with grooves along its inner surface, to provide a rapid and smooth supply of properly positioned rivets for such uses as the assembly of metal parts for an aircraft. During deposition, one of the inventors stated that “you need an odd number” of grooves, explaining that “[i]f we only had two grooves, there was a chance that the rivet would rotate on itself inside the tube because the stem of the rivet might go inside one of the grooves.” In this regard, it is not disputed that the patent specification describes an odd-numbered three-groove embodiment as pictured in figure 2 and refers to it as a preferred embodiment. The specification does not, however, specifically “state that an odd number of grooves is better than an even number.”
Issue(s): Whether the inventors knew of and deliberately concealed a better mode than they disclosed by failing to identify the three-groove embodiment as being the best implementation.
Holding(s): No. To establish a violation of the best mode requirement, it must be shown that the inventor possessed a better mode than was described in the patent, and that such better mode was intentionally concealed. “The general statement that an odd number is better than an even number is not a statement of a better mode than the preferred embodiment shown in the specification. There was no evidence of intentional concealment of a better mode than was disclosed. The preferred embodiment’s disclosure of a three-groove tube is adequate to enable a person skilled in this art to practice the best mode.”