## Facts

- A patent (U.S. Patent No. 2,242,408) claimed a grocery cashier’s counter used in “cash and carry” stores with a three-sided, bottomless movable rack that pushed groceries along the counter to the cashier and was then returned to repeat the process.
- The rack was guided along the counter by rails to keep it aligned while moving merchandise.
- The device was intended to speed checkout and reduce labor costs, and it achieved commercial success and wide adoption.
- The trial court found all individual elements were known in the prior art but treated the arrangement as a “new and useful combination.”
- The district court upheld claims 4, 5, and 6 and found infringement by a grocery-chain operator.
- The court of appeals affirmed, deferring to the district court’s finding of “invention” and citing commercial success and market need.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the lower courts used correct criteria for a patentable combination.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimed combination of previously known elements is patentable when the combination produces no new or different function beyond the aggregate of the elements’ known functions.
2. Whether commercial success and usefulness can establish patentability where the claimed advance reflects only an aggregation of old components.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and held claims 4, 5, and 6 invalid for want of invention.
- The Court concluded that the asserted novelty (an “extension” of the counter) was not clearly claimed and, in any event, merely lengthening a counter was not an inventive advance.
- The Court found that each component performed only its customary role: the counter supported goods, the rack pushed or pulled goods, and guide rails kept goods from falling.
- The Court rejected reliance on commercial success as a substitute for an inventive contribution.
- A concurrence agreed with invalidity and emphasized that patents confer monopolies that should be granted only for substantial advances beyond routine skill.

## Legal Principles

- A combination of old parts is not patentable when, in combination, the parts “perform or produce no new or different function or operation” than they previously performed.
- For a combination patent, the arrangement must contribute something beyond the sum of its parts; otherwise it merely aggregates known elements without invention.
- Patent law protects contributions that add to the “sum of useful knowledge” and should not withdraw from public use resources already available to skilled artisans.
- Commercial success and market demand may be evidentiary considerations, but “commercial success, without invention, does not make patentability.”
- Even when two lower courts uphold validity, the Supreme Court may correct an unduly permissive legal standard for “invention,” particularly for combinations composed entirely of old elements.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated the patent because it combined known counter, rack, and guide features without producing a new functional result, holding that commercial success cannot convert an uninventive aggregation of old elements into a patentable invention.


Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)