Opinion ID: 364729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Obviousness of the Looker Pallet.

Text: 11 Nonobvious subject matter is an essential condition of patentability under section 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 103 (1976). 2 The Supreme Court, in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), enunciated the following basic factual inquires to be made by the federal courts in ascertaining whether an invention meets the nonobviousness test of section 103: 12 (T)he scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. (Graham v. John Deere Co., supra, 383 U.S. at 17, 86 S.Ct. at 694.) 13 The Court has twice admonished that strict observance of those factual inquiries is necessary. Graham, supra, 383 U.S. at 18, 86 S.Ct. 684; Anderson's-Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62, 90 S.Ct. 305, 24 L.Ed.2d 258 (1969). 14 Satco asserts that the district court, in the portions of its opinion quoted above, utilized an inappropriate test of nonobviousness, equating nonobviousness with producing a synergistic result (or unusual or surprising consequences), rather than undertaking the factual analysis required by the Graham case, Supra. Accordingly, Satco contends that we must vacate the judgment and remand the case to the district court for a redetermination of the obviousness issue under the analysis set forth in Graham. 15 We reject this contention. The district court did not precisely articulate its application of the Graham analysis in deciding the obviousness issue. However, a reading of the court's entire opinion, in the context of the extensive record in this case, reveals that the district court in fact appropriately examined the prior art in comparison with the Looker patent and took into account the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 16 The district court's careful description of the differences between the Looker patent and prior art pallets, Satco, supra, 415 F.Supp. at 224, reflects the comprehensive evidence in the record regarding the scope and content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, the first two factual inquiries required by Graham, Supra. The record amply supports the district court's findings that, although Looker improved upon prior art pallets, each basic component of the Looker patent was known in the prior art. 17 We think it is also clear, from the district court's reference to a prior art unpatented pallet achieving effects similar to those of the Looker patent, that the court took into account the third Graham consideration, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, in finding that the Looker pallet produces only expected effects. Satco, supra, 415 F.Supp. at 224 and n. 1. Moreover, the court's quotation of the obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art language of Deere & Co. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 513 F.2d 1131, 1132 (9th Cir. 1975), and its reference to the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, Id. at 225, which statute contains similar language, indicates the court's awareness of the importance of the level of ordinary skill in assessing obviousness. 18 We therefore conclude that the district court made the factual inquiries required by Graham and section 103 as a background to its assessment of obviousness. 19 After addressing the factual inquiries called for by the Graham case, the district court was called upon to form a legal conclusion as to the section 103 condition of patentability. 3 In forming its legal conclusion that the Looker device failed of patentability for obviousness, the district court properly considered the failure of that device, which combines old elements, to create a synergistic result 4 or to disclose any unusual or surprising consequences. See Sakraida v. Ag Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282, 96 S.Ct. 1532, 47 L.Ed.2d 784 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 60-61, 90 S.Ct. 305, 24 L.Ed.2d 258 (1969); Penn International Industries v. Pennington Corporation, 583 F.2d 1078, 1081 (9th Cir. 1978); Reinke Manufacturing Co. v. Sidney Manufacturing Co., 594 F.2d 644 at 648 (8th Cir. 1979). 20 Ample evidence in the record supports the district court's determination that the Looker patent is invalid as obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we affirm on that issue. 21 We add a comment. The Graham analysis represents a practical approach for courts in developing a factual background for determining patentability. As already noted, the Supreme Court has insisted upon strict observance of that approach in order to achieve that uniformity and definiteness (in patentability decisions) which Congress called for (in enacting section 103). Graham v. John Deere & Co., Supra, 383 U.S. at 18, 86 S.Ct. at 694. See Anderson's-Black Rock, supra, 396 U.S. at 62, 90 S.Ct. 305. We further suggest that trial courts may make our task on review easier and more precise by fully articulating findings under the Graham analysis in all cases presenting the obviousness issue. 22