In a novelty challenge to a combination patent, a missing essential integer cannot be supplied by arguing it would have been an obvious workshop improvement; such an argument impermissibly imports concepts of obviousness into the assessment of novelty. The prohibition against mosaics in novelty challenges is not absolute: cross-referenced documents may be read together where the degree of connection is sufficient, but mere identification of prior patents as related art, or dismissive references to prior art, will not suffice. The term 'mechanical equivalent' is properly used in novelty cases while 'workshop improvement' belongs to obviousness.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 56 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 56 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.