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

Heading: Was the Kaminski-Pate Patent Invalid for Obviousness ?

Text: 29 The district court found that the Jenn and Gustafson patents (U.S. Patent No. 3,110,357 and U.S. Patent No. 3,677,576, respectively) presented by the defendants, although not cited by the Patent Office, qualify as and must be considered prior art. The court also found, however, that the Jenn and Gustafson patents are not as relevant to the claims made in the Kaminski-Pate patent as was the Malissa patent (U.S. Patent No. 3,521,414), which was cited and considered by the Patent Office. We cannot agree. 30 The Malissa patent describes a one piece, molded plastic base for mounting ventilators, skylights, trap doors and the like in a weatherproof manner on the roof of a building.... Malissa patent at 1. Essentially, it describes a roof curb without either a cover or any means to seal around protruding pipes. In contrast, the Jenn patent describes a roof curb and cover, including an upstanding annular flange (collar) in vertical alignment with (the) opening (in the cover). Jenn patent at 2. The Gustafson patent claims a rubber boot for sealing around pipes, an element entirely absent from the Malissa patent. Moreover, the Gustafson boot conforms closely to the boot described in claim 1 of the '110 patent. 11 31 The district court recognized that roof curbs and covers existed as prior art and that the invention embodied in the Kaminski-Pate patent was a rubber boot.... 12 The validity of the '110 patent accordingly depends upon whether the Kaminski-Pate boot represents a patentable device. 32 In resolving this question we find the Elwart patent, which was cited as a reference in the Kaminski-Pate patent but not mentioned by the district court, even more relevant than the Gustafson patent. 13 The Elwart patent (U.S. Patent No. 3,602,530) contains most if not all of the major elements of the Kaminski-Pate boot, including its ability to be cut so as to accommodate pipes of varying diameters. The abstract of the Elwart patent reads in part: 33 ABSTRACT: A flashing for roof vent pipes and the like in which a shield member surrounds the vent pipe and has a base flange engaging in the rooftop surface and an upper edge provided with a plurality of concentric inner rims selectively diametered to fit varying pipe sizes, the inner rim being readily severed so that the outer rim will fit the larger pipe, the flashing being made of a material which will deform to a degree, to conform with the shape of the pipe including minor imperfections thereof and to retain such conforming shape thereafter. 14 34 The only difference between the Elwart and Kaminski-Pate patents is that the Elwart boot, which is intended to seal pipes through slanted roofs, is designed so that its base may be flashed under the shingles or roofing materials of the roof rather than being fitted over an upright collar. The collar arrangement of the Kaminski-Pate patent, however, is predicted by the Gustafson patent. 15 35 Elwart taken with Gustafson teaches the use of a flexible boot used in sealing pipes going through roofs, having a lower cylindrical portion fitting over a collar protruding from a roof or the cover of a roof curb and an upper portion having a plurality of steps adaptable to be cut to fit a pipe of a particular size. Thus, all of the elements of the '110 patent are predicted by the elements found in the Jenn and Malissa curb patents and the Gustafson and Elwart boot patents. 36 A claim of nonobviousness resting on a new combination of old elements must pass a 'rather severe test' consonant with the difficulty and improbability of finding invention in an assembly of old elements. Airtex Corp. v. Shelley Radiant Ceiling Co., 536 F.2d 145, 150 (7th Cir. 1976). A determination by an appellate court of whether, as a matter of law, an invention is obvious invokes a three-step consideration: first, whether each element of the invention is obvious; second, if so, whether the combination is obvious; and third, if the combination seems obvious in itself, whether the rejection of the contrary teaching in the prior art requires a different conclusion. E-T Industries, Inc. v. Whittacker Corp., 523 F.2d 636, 641 (7th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 870, 97 S.Ct. 182, 50 L.Ed.2d 150 (1976); Airtex Corp., supra, 563 F.2d at 150. The '110 patent fails all three considerations. First, each of its essential elements was taught by the prior art. Second, when viewed in light of prior art, the combination is obvious in itself. Finally, we find no contrary teaching in the prior art which requires a different conclusion. 37 We conclude that the '110 patent was an obvious combination of prior art and invalid within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly we reverse the findings of the district court that the patent was valid and infringed. Having reached this conclusion it is unnecessary to consider the issues of overclaiming infringement and damages.