Opinion ID: 654190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Cedarapids' Cross-Appeal

Text: In its cross-appeal, Cedarapids contends that the district court erred in denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that claims 12 and 13 of the '904 patent were not proved invalid for obviousness. Cedarapids reasons that claims 1-11 were held to be obvious and that claims 12 and 13 merely include conventional temperature limitations that are present in the prior art drum mixers. Therefore, the addition of conventional temperature limitations makes no difference respecting obviousness. It relies on the testimony of its expert and alleged admissions by plaintiffs that the temperatures were old in the art and could not support patentability. Most significant is the statement by plaintiff's counsel, There is no difference from an obviousness viewpoint between Claims 12 and 13 and Claim 1. Mr. Mendenhall does not respond on the merits. He discounts his counsel's statements at trial as admissions of obviousness or nonobviousness but otherwise does not dispute any of the above arguments. He merely states, We agree with Cedarapids that the obviousness verdicts on Claims 1, 12 and 13 were inconsistent.... Reasonable jurors could not rationally reach different conclusions. He then asserts the remedy for inconsistent verdicts is a new trial not the grant of JNOV. Mr. Mendenhall misconstrues Cedarapids' position. Cedarapids seeks reversal of the verdicts that claims 12 and 13 of '904 are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 103 but not because of inconsistency between the verdict on claim 1 and the verdicts on claims 12 and 13. Cedarapids argues that, as a matter of law, claims 12 and 13 are invalid for obviousness (as well as claim 1) based on the prior art including prior art respecting the temperature limitations. Not having challenged the verdicts of obviousness, and not being entitled to a new trial, Mr. Mendenhall has conceded on appeal that the record here supports the conclusions that claims 1-11 are invalid for obviousness. Further, he continues to argue to us respecting obviousness that there is no rational basis for reaching different conclusions on claims 1, 12 and 13. He makes no argument going to the merits, stating only that there was ample evidence to support nonobviousness of all claims. The evidence cited is the testimony of a witness who merely stated he believed the patent office had considered all of the prior art raised by Cedarapids against Mr. Mendenhall's '904 and '905 patents. This does not negate the merits of Cedarapids' challenge. In view of these circumstances, we hold that claims 12 and 13 of the '904 patent were also proved invalid for obviousness.