## Facts

- Joseph Wyer sought a U.S. patent on methods and apparatus for financial data processing (insurance premium computations).
- More than one year before Wyer’s U.S. filing date, an Australian patent application describing the same invention was “laid open to public inspection” under Australian law.
- The Australian application was available to the public in microfilm form at the Australian Patent Office and several branch offices.
- The microfilm collection was organized and indexed so that members of the public could locate the application using ordinary search information (e.g., applicant name/serial information).
- A PTO examiner rejected Wyer’s claims as anticipated under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), treating the laid-open Australian application as a “printed publication.”
- The PTO Board of Appeals affirmed; Wyer appealed to the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether an Australian patent application laid open to public inspection and accessible on microfilm more than one year before the U.S. filing date qualifies as a “printed publication” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
2. Whether the level of dissemination and indexing of the microfilmed application was sufficient to make it publicly accessible to persons of ordinary skill exercising reasonable diligence.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Board’s § 102(b) rejection.
- The laid-open Australian application was a “printed publication” because it was publicly accessible through the patent office’s microfilm system.
- The court rejected a categorical rule excluding foreign laid-open applications from “printed publication” status.
- The court held that mass distribution is not required; the controlling question is reasonable public accessibility.

## Legal Principles

- A reference is a “printed publication” under § 102(b) if it has been disseminated or otherwise made available so that persons interested and ordinarily skilled in the art, exercising reasonable diligence, can locate it.
- “Printed publication” turns on public accessibility, not the document’s physical form (paper vs. microfilm) or the geographic location of the repository.
- Indexing need not be perfect or widely advertised; it is enough that the document is organized so that interested researchers can find it through ordinary efforts.
- Foreign patent office materials open to public inspection can constitute § 102(b) prior art when they are sufficiently accessible to the public.

## Conclusion

Because the Australian application was laid open and accessible on indexed microfilm in multiple public patent-office locations more than one year before Wyer’s U.S. filing date, it qualified as a § 102(b) printed publication and anticipated Wyer’s claims, requiring affirmance of the PTO’s rejection.


In re Wyer, 655 F.2d 221 (C.C.P.A. 1981)