Opinion ID: 359700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Obviousness and Secondary Considerations

Text: 14 Section 103 of 35 U.S.C. establishes nonobviousness as one of three conditions of patentability. 2 The ultimate question of patentability is one of law, but the legal conclusion is resolved against the background of three factual inquiries:a) scope and content of the prior art; 15 b) differences between the prior art and the claims in suit; and 16 c) the level of skill in the pertinent art. 17 Graham, 383 U.S. at 17, 86 S.Ct. 684. See also Austin v. Marco Dental Products, 560 F.2d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 1977), Cert. denied 435 U.S. 918, 98 S.Ct. 1477, 55 L.Ed.2d 511 (1978). 18 In Graham the Supreme Court approved appraisal of secondary considerations such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., to cast light on the circumstances surrounding the origin of the item sought to be patented. Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18, 86 S.Ct. at 694. The Graham court made clear that such inquiries are secondary and that the resort to them is permissible but not required. Id. at 18, 86 S.Ct. 684. 19 To be patentable an item must be novel, useful and nonobvious, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101-103; Graham, 383 U.S. at 12, 86 S.Ct. 684. Consideration of secondary factors will often assist in ascertaining whether the alleged invention is obvious, but neither their presence nor absence is alone determinative of the question. 20 Pennington asserts that the court's findings of fact do not support the conclusion of patent validity. In addressing this contention we must first consider whether Penn's patent comprehends new elements or is merely a combination of old ones. Combination patents are subjected to rigid scrutiny. 21 Courts should scrutinize combination patent claims with a care proportioned to the difficulty and improbability of finding invention in an assembly of old elements. . . . A patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions . . . obviously withdraws what already is known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. 22 Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 281, 96 S.Ct. 1532, 1537, 47 L.Ed.2d 784 (1976) (quoting Great A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950)). 23 To withstand challenge a combination patent must be synergistic; it must result in an effect greater than the sum of the several effects taken separately. Anderson's-Black Rock v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57, 61, 90 S.Ct. 305, 308, 24 L.Ed.2d 258 (1969). See also Sakraida, 425 U.S. at 282. Phrased differently, to be valid a combination patent must produce an unusual or surprising result. Kamei-Autokomfort v. Eurasian Automotive Products, 553 F.2d 603, 608 (9th Cir. 1977); Austin v. Marco Dental Products, 560 F.2d at 972. 24 Whether the combination patent standards for validity come into play requires consideration of external evidence and depends on the state of the prior art. The Suntanner is the only prior art under consideration in this case and the district court found that Penn's patent included numerous elements not found in the Suntanner. 3 We therefore conclude that, on this record, the Penn patent cannot be deemed a combination and need not demonstrate an unusual or surprising result to be valid. 25 We recognize that the Penn structure is not complex, but its simplicity is one of its primary virtues. This court has made it clear, moreover, that an invention will not be denied a patent because it embodies a solution which seems simple and obvious with the benefit of hindsight. Saf-Gard Products, Inc. v. Service Parts, Inc., 532 F.2d 1266, 1272 (9th Cir.), Cert. denied 429 U.S. 896, 97 S.Ct. 258, 50 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (citing National Sponge Cushion Co. v. Rubber Corp., 286 F.2d 731, 735 (9th Cir. 1961), Cert. denied, 368 U.S. 976, 82 S.Ct. 480, 7 L.Ed.2d 438 (1962)). 26 The Penn bed's suitability for indoor use marks a definite functional advance over the Suntanner. Even minor changes from the prior art can produce a patentable invention so long as the result could not have been predicted beforehand by a person skilled in the art. Saf-Gard Products, 532 F.2d at 1272. 27 The district court's conclusion that the patent in suit is not obvious in light of the Suntanner is supported by the record and by findings of fact which are not clearly erroneous.