Opinion ID: 403697
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Pertinent Art at the Time Involved.

Text: 33 The primary difference between the Mitchell patent and the Mortimer patent is that the Mitchell patent in claim five provides for a pair of hydraulic motors and frictional engagement of driving wheels with the casting bed as the specific means for accurately moving and controlling the casting bed along the track. The Mortimer patent merely teaches use of a mobile carriage driven either manually or by power without specifying the means of movement. 8 One must note, however, that claims one, two, three, six, seven, ten, eleven and twelve through fifteen of the Mitchell patent refer only generally to a means for moving said casting bed along said track. The Mitchell specifications also disclose use of flotation and a cable-type towing mechanism as an alternative means of movement. Nothing unique about the hydraulic motors themselves is claimed; only the use of such motors in conjunction with this particular operation is claimed to be novel and nonobvious. The particular hydraulic motor embodied by the Mitchell invention is a Mark IV Staffa hydraulic motor manufactured by Chamberlain Industries Limited of London, England, Patent No. 3,354,786. Application of a hydraulic drive to the mobile casting bed, while admittedly more accurate and efficient than prior mechanical means, appears to be no more than the work of a skilled mechanic combining two devices both known in prior art. 9 34 Span-Deck claims that the Mitchell patent discloses a nonobvious invention not included in the prior art by specifying collinear configuration of the unloading, manufacturing, and curing areas which creates greater efficiency. While none of the prior art references specifically teach a system with an unloading area on one side of the manufacturing area and a curing area on the opposite side, the Mortimer patent does refer to pushing the carriage to a part of the plant where the material in the molds will be permitted to set until ready for removal, and the Brown patent discloses a curing area at the end of the track where a steel sheet is placed over the top surface of the poured concrete and (t)he molded, cored object remains on pallet until cured sufficiently to handle. Furthermore, the Kinnard application of 1960 refers to removing the carriage frame to a curing station until the concrete has set. Although none of the prior art references mention a specific unloading overrun area, it is only logical that such an area must exist at some point on the assembly line. The particular collinear configuration taught by the Mitchell patent appears to be no more than an obvious rearrangement of parts to be considered by anyone experimenting in the field. It is well-settled that more than mere change of form or rearrangement of parts is necessary for patentability. See, e.g., Stephenson v. Brooklyn Cross-Town Railroad, 114 U.S. 149, 154, 55 S.Ct. 777, 779, 29 L.Ed. 58 (1885); National Connector Corp. v. Malco Manufacturing Co., 392 F.2d 766, 770 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 89 S.Ct. 254, 21 L.Ed.2d 259 (1968); Ajax Mfg. Co. v. National Mach. Co., 93 F.2d 344, 346 (6th Cir. 1937); DeBurgh v. Kindel Furniture Co., 125 F.Supp. 468, 476 (W.D.Mich.1954), aff'd, 229 F.2d 740 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 823, 77 S.Ct. 30, 1 L.Ed.2d 47 (1956). The particular collinear configuration taught by the Mitchell patent appears to be no more than a logical and obvious step forward which accomplishes no new and unexpected result, but which is admittedly of economic importance. See Shell Development Co. v. Pure Oil Co., 111 F.Supp. 197, 210 (D.D.C.1953), aff'd sub nom. Pure Oil Co. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 212 F.2d 454 (D.C.Cir.1954). 35 Finally, the use of a stationary curing area is taught by the Mitchell patent, but is not explicitly specified in the prior art. Larry Foster, appellee's own witness, admitted, however, that such a curing technique, while not inherent in the process, is an accepted practice in the concrete industry. 36 Based on the legal criteria previously discussed, we hold as a matter of law that the experimental skill needed to combine these features would require no greater degree of ingenuity or skill than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic skilled in the art of manufacturing precast plastic materials. 10 We hold that the discernible differences between the Mitchell patent and the prior art are obvious improvements and combinations of existing machines, processes, and systems. Cf. University of Illinois Foundation v. Winegard Co., 402 F.2d 125, 127 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 917, 89 S.Ct. 1191, 22 L.Ed.2d 452 (1969). 37 In sum, notwithstanding the commercial success enjoyed by Span-Deck, the Mitchell system appears to be at most an obvious technological advance not amounting to a patentable invention. As this court previously stated: 38 The change in the form of any element of a prior patent must result in more than a useful natural phenomenon which man has accumulated through common knowledge. Thus, even though the use of a new device greatly improves the field and provides great utility, and commercial success is enjoyed because of the long-felt need, these features cannot sustain patentability where involved is only an extended application of obvious attributes from the prior art. Cf. Frederick Stearns & Co. v. Grove's Laboratories, Inc., 87 F.2d 822, 824 (8 Cir. 1937). 39 National Connector Corp. v. Malco Manufacturing Co., 392 F.2d 766, 771 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 89 S.Ct. 254, 21 L.Ed.2d 259 (1968). 40