Obviousness Standard (35 U.S.C. § 103)

30 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Reiner v. I. Leon Co., Inc.
  285 F.2d 501· 2d Cir.· 1960-12-21 ·cited 133×
• Blish v. Time Saver Tools, Inc.
  236 F.2d 913· 10th Cir.· 1956-08-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the bending of the drill bit's cutting edge, when considered with prior art showing similar features, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, thus rendering the patent invalid.
• Frantz Mfg. Co. v. Phenix Mfg. Co., Inc.
  457 F.2d 314· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-16 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a public sale more than one year before a patent application filing date invalidates the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), even if the sold item is not identical to the patented invention, as long as the differences are not independently patentable. The court a
• The Black & Decker Mfg. Co. v. Ever-Ready Appliance MFG. Co.
  684 F.2d 546· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Black & Decker's patent for a step stool was invalid due to obviousness in light of prior art, and that there was no violation of the Lanham Act regarding trade dress because secondary meaning was not established.
• Martin-Marietta Corp. v. The United States
  373 F.2d 972· Ct. Cl.· 1967-03-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that both the liner patent and the barrier patent were invalid because the inventions they claimed were obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of invention.
• Application of Sol D. Gershon
  372 F.2d 535· C.C.P.A.· 1967-02-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the claimed invention of a buffered fluoride dentifrice maintaining a pH of 5 to 6 in saliva was obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on prior art teachings.
• Pressteel Co. v. Halo Lighting Prods., Inc.
  314 F.2d 695· 9th Cir.· 1963-03-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the patent was invalid for lack of inventive advance over the prior art, and affirmed the lower court's decision.
• Application of Paul W. Garbo
  287 F.2d 192· C.C.P.A.· 1961-02-21 ·cited 12×
  A design patent claim is unpatentable if the design is the obvious result of confining known elements to achieve a functional purpose, even if it has an attractive appearance.
• Selmix Dispensers, Inc. v. Multiplex Faucet Co. (Inc.)
  277 F.2d 884· 8th Cir.· 1960-05-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the patent was invalid for lack of patentable invention, as the improvements were obvious to a person skilled in the art and anticipated by prior art.
• Application of Leslie Frederick Wiggins
  397 F.2d 356· C.C.P.A.· 1968-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the claimed pharmaceutical preparations were not obvious in light of the prior art, despite the prior art disclosing the same compound for a different purpose and with different dosage amounts.
• Application of Denise Mancy
  499 F.2d 1289· C.C.P.A.· 1974-06-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a process for producing a known antibiotic using a newly discovered microorganism strain is not obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, even if the microorganism itself is a product of nature.
• Gross v. JFD Mfg. Co., Inc.
  314 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the patent for the Gross insulator was invalid because the improvements constituted mere mechanical skill, not invention, and thus failed to meet the statutory requirements for patentability.
• Application of Ewald Katzschmann
  347 F.2d 620· C.C.P.A.· 1965-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court should affirm the board's conclusion that the subject matter is obvious.
• In re Spreter
  661 F.2d 1220· C.C.P.A.· 1981-10-15 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals' rejection of the design patent application.
• Int'l Salt Co. v. Commissioner OF Patents
  436 F.2d 126· D.C. Cir.· 1970-04-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in determining the patentability of the claimed process, finding it obvious as a matter of law.
• Application of Morris Levy
  310 F.2d 751· C.C.P.A.· 1962-12-12 ·cited 4×
  A design patent claim is unpatentable if the design, as a whole, would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, even if there are minor differences from prior art.
• Am. Hoist & Derrick Co. & T. S. DeCuir v. The Manitowoc Co., Inc.
  603 F.2d 629· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgments of non-infringement and dismissal of counterclaims, finding the accused cranes did not infringe the patent claims.
• Application of William True Davis, Jr.
  305 F.2d 501· C.C.P.A.· 1962-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the claimed invention, a single injectable dose of live and dead antigens, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
• Application of Anthony C. DeNAPOLI, Jr.
  302 F.2d 768· C.C.P.A.· 1962-05-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prior art did not disclose the subject matter of the appealed claim, nor did it make the appellants' solution obvious to one skilled in the art.
• In re Upson
  161 F.2d 282· C.C.P.A.· 1947-04-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the proposed combination of prior art references would not be obvious to one skilled in the art and would not anticipate the appellant's invention.
• In re McLAREN
  158 F.2d 299· C.C.P.A.· 1946-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that combining the notched sheets of Schade with the fabric connection of McLaren would be obvious to a person skilled in the art, rendering the claims unpatentable.
• In re Hans Oetiker
  977 F.2d 1443· Fed. Cir.· 1992-10-13
  The court clarifies that an invention is obvious if the prior art as a whole suggests the combination, not necessarily if a specific reference explicitly suggests it.
• Bepex Corp. v. The Black Clawson Co.
  713 F.2d 202· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-01
  The court held that the Wilhelm patent claims were invalid due to obviousness and affirmed the district court's decision, while also affirming the denial of costs to the prevailing party.
• Application of Floyd L. Beman
  395 F.2d 1021· C.C.P.A.· 1968-06-13
  The court held that the patent claims were unpatentable over the prior art because the claimed process variations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
• Application of August H. Rauch
  390 F.2d 760· C.C.P.A.· 1968-02-15
• Application of Jack K. Dale
  377 F.2d 661· C.C.P.A.· 1967-05-25
  The court held that substituting hydrocortisone for cortisone acetate in a known combination with neomycin would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and thus the claimed invention was not patentable.
• Application of Adolph P. Alexander
  311 F.2d 585· C.C.P.A.· 1963-01-16
  The court held that the British patent adequately taught the use of metallic rare earth elements, including lanthanum, as nodulization-impelling agents, making the appellant's claims obvious.
• Application of Jan J. Went
  309 F.2d 494· C.C.P.A.· 1962-11-14
  The court held that the use of hydrogen or deuterium as a lift gas in a nuclear reactor process, as described in the reference article, would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
• In re Malcolm
  129 F.2d 533· C.C.P.A.· 1942-06-15
  The court held that the applicant's claimed process for hardening scale-free metal was not obvious in light of prior art, and therefore patentable.