The issue of the case was whether the invention had been reduced to practice. When looking at utility the court held, "The doctrine of actual reduction to practice is applicable only where there has been an actual reduction to practice of an invention which requires physical embodiment in a structure and testing to demonstrate its operability and utility, or, in the case of a process, the operation of such process for like purposes. In the eyes of the law the invention is not completed until it has been reduced to practice." Throughout the opinion the court seems to keep operability and utility together as a unit.