Opinion ID: 407611
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Test of Obviousness

Text: 20 In § 103 of the Patent Act of 1950, 35 U.S.C. § 103, Congress added the statutory test of obviousness as a condition of patentability. 6 In construing § 103 in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), the Supreme Court held: 21 While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law 7 ... the § 103 condition ... lends itself to several basic factual inquiries. Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. 8 22 The test of obviousness must, of course, be considered in the light of well established general rules, which were summarized by this court in Republic Industries, Inc. v. Schlage Lock Co., 592 F.2d 963, 972-73 (7th Cir. 1979): 23 We begin this analysis by noting that a patent is presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282. That presumption, however, is not conclusive (Citation omitted); it merely shifts the burden of proof to the party attacking the validity of the patent. (Citation omitted). Furthermore, that presumption does not exist against evidence of prior art not before the Patent Office. (Citations omitted). Even one prior art reference not considered by the Patent Office can suffice to overthrow the presumption. Henry Manufacturing Co. v. Commercial Filters Corp., 489 F.2d 1008, 1013 (7th Cir. 1972). 24 The foregoing analysis was reaffirmed in Dual Manufacturing, supra, 619 F.2d at 665. 9 In that case we also recognized that 25 a preliminary factual determination is to be made on the scope and content of the prior art and on the difference between the prior art and the claims at issue, but that when these factual determinations are made the trial judge determines as a matter of law whether the improvement would have been obvious at the time of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. 26 It was recognized also that the legal conclusion is fully reviewable by the appellate court. Id. at 664. 10 27 We turn now to an application of these principles to the facts in this case. 28