Opinion ID: 457170
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Hodgetts Declaration

Text: 35 Cable claims that the Hodgetts declaration, if viewed in a light most favorable to Cable, raises genuine issues of material fact in relation to the inquiries required by Graham dealing with scope and content of the prior art and the differences between that art and the claims at issue. With respect to the references discussed above, the declaration adds little, if anything, not already in the record. While attempting to highlight differences between the teachings of the references and the claimed invention, it largely summarizes their contents and is thus duplicative in a manner which fails to demonstrate any genuine dispute as to issues of material fact and is not helpful in resolving patentability problems. What we do find helpful is facts of which we would not otherwise be aware. In re Vamco Machine & Tool, Inc., 752 F.2d 1564, 1576, 224 USPQ 617, 624 (Fed.Cir.1985). 36 The declaration states the opinion that the patented invention of the Schwartz patent ... [would] not [have been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the night light art from the teachings of the references discussed. Obviousness, however, is a question of law. 37 Opinion testimony by experts concluding that an invention would or would not have been obvious may influence the court's decision, but conflicting opinions on a legal issue vel non raise no issue of contested fact. Nor is the court's conclusion on obviousness an adverse inference of fact. 38 Petersen Manufacturing Co. v. Central Purchasing, Inc., 740 F.2d 1541, 1548, 222 USPQ 562, 567 (Fed.Cir.1984) (citations omitted). 39 We reject the contention that the Hodgetts declaration raised contested issues of fact. At most, the declaration offered an interpretation of undisputed factual evidence, but did not set forth specific conflicting facts that showed a genuine issue requiring trial.