How knowledgeable does the law assume the inventor to be?
• Patentee is presumed to have known and is chargeable with knowledge of everything disclosed in prior art in his field. Belden v Air Control Products, Inc. (1956, DC Mich) [102, n 367] ** • Inventor is charged with acquaintance with all that patent offices in every country contain and with all that has ever been publicly sold or used in United States. Merit Mfg. Co. v Hero Mfg. Co. (1950, CA2 NY) [102, n 367]** • Applicant is charged with knowledge of literature in his field, irrespective of whether he is actually familiar with it; therefore, he may not be deemed to be original inventor if substance of alleged invention has been previously shown or described in patent or other printed publication. Monaco v Hoffman (1960, DC Dist Col) [102, n 367] ** • Patentee’s contribution must be measured against entire body of prior art and he is presumed by law to have been familiar with whole prior art as it existed at time he made his contribution. Mohasco Industries, Inc. v E.T. Barwick Mills,
