Opinion ID: 491927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wabash's Appeal

Text: 4 Wabash contends that the '837 reissue patent is unenforceable because Phelon filed a false reissue oath. Although Wabash is correct that the district court, in the section of its opinion on inequitable conduct, did not specifically address the false reissue oath, after complete review of the pleadings, trial testimony, and final arguments of counsel, we affirm the conclusion reached by the district court. The district court properly considered a myriad of accusations directed at proving inequitable conduct before the PTO that were cumulative. 1 USPQ2d at 1695. The district court, after being presented with all the evidence, making credibility determinations, and hearing closing arguments, concluded that the defendant has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the prior art or other evidence was withheld with an intent to defraud the PTO or that such conduct breached the duty of candor. 1 USPQ2d 1695-96. Wabash has failed to show any clear error in the findings underlying the district court's conclusion that no inequitable conduct occurred. See J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 1562, 223 USPQ 1089, 1094 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 73 (1985). 5 Wabash further asserts that Phelon failed to prove that the Generation III CDI system infringed any claims of the '837 reissue patent. The finding of infringement depends on whether the properly interpreted claims, a question of law, read on the accused device. Envirotech Corp. v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 758, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed.Cir.1984). Literal infringement is a question of fact and reviewable under a clearly erroneous standard. Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1269-70, 229 USPQ 805, 811 (Fed.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 107 S.Ct. 875 (1987). We find neither legal error nor clearly erroneous findings in the district court's conclusion on infringement. Thus, the district court's holding that claims 1-5 of the '837 patent are infringed is affirmed. Since the Generation III CDI infringes original claims 1-5, the challenges to the district court's rulings on intervening rights and to the validity of the broader claims 6, 7, 9 and 10 obtained on reissue are moot. 6 The final issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court correctly determined that the '780 patent is invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103. Wabash asks that this portion of the judgment be vacated. Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966). These factual inquiries include: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) objective indicia of nonobviousness. Id. at 17. While fact findings are to be construed liberally in support of the judgment, we must be convinced from the district court's opinion that the proper Graham analysis was followed. See Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 958, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1198 (Fed.Cir.1986). We are not convinced. Evidence that the Graham analysis was not properly performed appears in the district court's discussion of the Generation II CDI only, without a comparison of the '780 patent invention as a whole to the teaching of the prior art as a whole. Furthermore, the district court declared the entire '780 patent invalid without a discussion of any of the claims. This lack of discussion is particularly egregious since only claim 12 of the '780 patent was at issue. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment invalidating the '780 patent is vacated. 7 In conclusion, the district court's judgment is affirmed to the extent above indicated except for that portion invalidating the '780 patent, which is vacated.