Opinion of the Court. 335 U.S. case except for the position taken by the United States Court of Appeals in this case that the cosmetic problem here was remote and unrelated to the problems considered in the prior art. For this reason that court held that patentees in the field of cosmetics were not bound by prior art knowledge disclosed by the Shipp and other patents. The court therefore considered this patent almost as though patentees were writing on a clean sheet. Accordingly it held that the use of urea in the cosmetics field with the results here obtained was patentable invention. In this the court was in error. As we have pointed out, the general store of chemical knowledge in 1938 was such that anyone working on any problem of acidic corrosion and irritation would naturally and spontaneously have tried urea. All that these patentees did was to utilize in a cosmetic preparation, publicly available knowledge that urea would inhibit acidic corrosion. The step taken by the patentees in advance of past knowledge was too short to amount to invention. They merely applied an old process of inhibition to a new cosmetic use. This is not invention. Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co., 324 U. S. 320, 327. Reversed. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS would reverse the judgment on the authority of Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U. S. 127, 131, which was decided after the decision of the Court of Appeals in this case. Syllabus. HOINESS v. UNITED STATES. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 20. Argued October 21, 1948.-Decided November 8, 1948. 1. A District Court entered an order dismissing a libel and directing that counsel for respondents submit findings of fact and conclusions of law. Subsequently, it filed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a decree dismissing the libel. Libelant appealed within three months from the date of the first order and what he sought to have reviewed was plain; but he referred only to the second order in his petition for appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that the first order was the final one and that the second order was not appealable. Held: It erred in doing so, since the defect resulting from a failure to refer to the first order was of such a technical nature that the Court of Appeals should have disregarded it in accordance with the policy expressed by Congress in R. S. § 954, 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 777. Pp. 300-301. 2. A seaman on a vessel owned by the United States and operated under an agreement between the War Shipping Administration and a private shipping company was injured while the vessel was docked at San Francisco and brought a libel in personam against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act. The libel did not allege that the seaman was a resident of the district where suit was brought nor that the vessel was found there at the time suit was filed. The United States did not appear specially but answered to the merits. Raising the question sua sponte, the District Court dismissed the libel for want of jurisdiction. Held: It erred in doing so, since the provisions of § 2 of the Suits in Admiralty Act directing where suits shall be brought relate not to jurisdiction but to venue, which was waived by failure to object before pleading to the merits. Pp. 301–302. 165 F. 2d 504, reversed. A District Court dismissed for want of jurisdiction a libel brought by a seaman against the United States and others under the Suits in Admiralty Act. 75 F. Supp. 289. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal. 165 F. 2d 504. 335 U.S. Opinion of the Court. This Court granted certiorari. 333 U. S. 859. Reversed, p. 302. Herbert Resner argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Harry I. Rand argued the cause for the United States, stating that the Government was not opposed to the reversal of the judgments below and a remand of the cause to the District Court for a decision on the merits. With Mr. Rand on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Assistant Attorney General Morison, John R. Benney and Alvin O. West. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioner was a seaman on the S. S. Escanaba Victory, a vessel owned by the United States and operated under an agreement between the War Shipping Administration 1 and the American-South African Line, Inc., the provisions of which are unnecessary to relate here. He was injured while the vessel was docked at the port of San Francisco, California, and brought this suit in admiralty against the United States under the Suits in Admiralty Act.3 1 The United States Maritime Commission now stands in its shoes. See 60 Stat. 501. 2 Other parties were also sued but they were dismissed from the case. 3 Section 2 of that Act provides in part: "That in cases where if such vessel were privately owned or operated, or if such cargo were privately owned and possessed, a proceeding in admiralty could be maintained at the time of the commencement of the action herein provided for, a libel in personam may be brought against the United States or against such corporation, as the case may be, provided that such vessel is employed as a merchant vessel or is a tug boat operated by such corporation. Such suits shall be brought in the district court of the United States for 297 Opinion of the Court. 4 41 Stat. 525, 46 U. S. C. § 742. The libel alleged that the United States maintains offices and principal places of business in the Northern District of California where the suit was brought, but it did not allege that petitioner was a resident of that district nor that the vessel was found there at the time suit was filed. The United States did not appear specially but answered to the merits, leaving all questions of jurisdiction to the court. The District Court raised the question of jurisdiction sua sponte and, being of opinion that jurisdiction was lacking, dismissed the libel. 75 F. Supp. 289. Its opinion was dated August 5, 1946, and on the same day it entered an order reading as follows: "It is ordered: "That the libel herein is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that respondents have judgment for costs. "Counsel for respondents will submit findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with the rules of court and the opinion filed herewith." On October 14, 1946, it filed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" and a decree. The decree after formal recitals stated: "Wherefore, by reason of the law and the evidence and the premises, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law, as aforesaid, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the above-entitled Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action, and that the libel be dismissed." the district in which the parties so suing, or any of them, reside or have their principal place of business in the United States, or in which the vessel or cargo charged with liability is found. . . . Upon application of either party the cause may, in the discretion of the court, be transferred to any other district court of the United States." * The record shows the petitioner's residence was in Oregon. Opinion of the Court. 335 U.S. On October 18, 1946, petitioner filed a petition for appeal stating that he was "aggrieved by the rulings, findings, judgment and decree made and entered herein on October 14, 1946." The appeal was allowed on the same day. The Court of Appeals by a divided vote dismissed the appeal, holding that the first order was the final one and that the decree of October 14, 1946, was not appealable. 165 F. 2d 504. The case is here on certiorari. 5 I. We find it unnecessary to determine whether the order of August 5 or that of October 14, 1946, was the final decision from which an appeal could be taken within the meaning of § 128 of the Judicial Code, 36 Stat. 1133, 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 225; 62 Stat. 929, 28 U. S. C. § 1291. The appeal was taken within three months of the earlier of the two and was therefore timely. 43 Stat. 940, 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 230. And although the petition for appeal referred solely to the second order and not to the first, that defect was of such a technical nature that the Court of Appeals should have disregarded it in accordance with the policy expressed by Congress in R. S. § 954, 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 777.° The mandate of that statute is for a court to disregard niceties of form and to give judgment as the right of the 5 This is the kind of problem which could be appropriately handled through the rule making authority of the Court of Appeals. Cf. Commissioner v. Bedford, 325 U. S. 283, 288. 6 That section reads as follows: "No summons, writ, declaration, return, process, judgment, or other proceedings in civil causes, in any court of the United States, shall be abated, arrested, quashed, or reversed for any defect or want of form; but such court shall proceed and give judgment according as the right of the cause and matter in law shall appear to it, without regarding any such defect, or want of form, except those which, in cases of demurrer, the party demurring specially sets down, together with his demurrer, as the cause thereof; and such court shall amend every such defect and want of form, other than those which the |