Document: 396 U.S. 57 90 S.Ct. 305 24 L.Ed.2d 258 ANDERSON'S-BLACK ROCK, INC., Petitioner,v.PAVEMENT SALVAGE CO., Inc. No. 45. Argued Nov. 10, 1969. Decided Dec. 8, Alan W. Borst, New York City, for petitioner. Walter J. Blenko, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Respondent brought this action against petitioner infringement United States Patent 3,055,280 covering 'Means Treating Bituminous Pavement.' The patent was assigned to respondent by one Neville. 2 concrete—commonly called asphalt or 'blacktop'—is often laid in strips. first strip usually has cooled time adjoining is be laid, creating what known as a cold joint. Because bituminous concrete pliable and capable being shaped only at temperatures 250 290 F., joint results poor bonding between Water dirt enter strips, causing deterioration pavement. 3 Respondent's sought solve problem combining on chassis (1) radiant-heat burner heating exposed edge pavement; (2) spreader placing material that strip; (3) tamper screed, shaping newly placed desired contour surface. 4 standard paving machine use prior respondent's claimed invention combined equipment spreading asphalt, it unquestioned combination alone does not result patentable invention. Petitioner's alleged resulted from its front machine, thus allowing perform same functions with basic elements those described patent. 5 working pavement dates back issued 1905 Morcom, 799,014. value such heater lies fact softens without burning essentially disclosed 1956 Schwank, 2,775,294. Thus burner, itself, also patentable. 6 placement upon side paver central feature used way continuous along prevent joint, whereas previously burners had been merely patching limited areas asphalt. operation is, however, no dependent other machine. It hung because convenient place when longitudinal A separate can conjunction eliminate so transverse joints 7 claims involves art which produces new useful eliminating Its claim unobviousness based largely testimony two individuals who are knowledgeable field paving, expressing their doubts inventor Neville radiant heat would joints. District Court rejected infringement, finding invalid. Appeals, divided vote, reversed. For reasons follow, we reverse judgment Appeals. 8 Each art. urged distinctive element burner. But seems conceded And reach question whether old created valid 9 said: 'All plaintiff (respondent) done construct four chassis.' That relevant commercial success, experts tendered testified they doubtful joint.1 must turn supplied key requirement. We conclude reasonably obvious ordinary skill 10 There uncontested evidence presence critical essential functioning curing appears operating tandem fashion work well. putting together though perhaps matter great convenience, did produce 'new different function,' Lincoln Engineering Co. Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 545, 549, 58 662, 664, 82 L.Ed. 1008, within test validity patents. 11 may an effect greater than sum several effects taken separately. No synergistic argued here. fervently filled long felt want enjoyed success. matters 'without will make patentability.' Great A. & P. Tea Supermarket 340 147, 153, 71 127, 130, 95 162. 12 basically constitutional, Article I, § Constitution authorizing Congress '(T)o promote Progress * Arts' inventors monopolies times. stated Graham John Deere Co., 383 1, 6, 86 684, 688, 15 under power 'enlarge monopoly regard innovation, advancement social benefit gained thereby. Moreover, authorize issuance patents whose remove existent knowledge public domain, restrict free access materials already available. Innovation, advancement, things add inherent requisites system constitutional command 'promote Arts.' This expressed ignored.' 13 In case patentability turns meaning 35 U.S.C. 1032 reviewed case, supra, 13—17, 691—693. 14 'We believe legislative history, well sources, shows revision intended change general level section codification judicial precedents embracing Hotchkiss3 condition, congressional directions inquiries into obviousness subject patented prerequisite Id., 17, 693. Obviousness, issue, resolved follows: 16 'Under 103, scope content determined; differences issue ascertained; pertinent resolved.' Ibid. 17 admonished 'strict observance' requirements necessary. 18, S.Ct., 694. 18 while performed usefulfunction,4 added nothing nature quality patented. further skilled obvious-nonobvious standard. Use important marked successful venture. noted, more needed 19 Reversed. 20 THE CHIEF JUSTICE took part decision case. Francis C. Witkoski, engineer, met inventor, Charles Neville, 1955 1960 Witkoski Director Research Pennsylvania Department Highways. told he invented piece but burn replied equipment. Subsequently, ordered some units tested them. dialogue focused exclusively properties Leslie B. Crowley, 1954. Crowley Chief Pavements Railroads Section, Installations, Headquarters, Air Force. explained advantages using 'infra-red' maintenance repair pavements. his interest insufficient motivate him take any device 'do job.' Crowley-Neville discussion entirely paver. 103 provides: 'A obtained identically set forth 102 title, if whole have made person having said pertains. Patentability shall negatived manner made.' Hotchkiss Greenwood, How. 248, 683. 101 'Whoever invents discovers process, manufacture, composition matter, improvement thereof, obtain therefor, conditions title.' Absent here 'new.' said, characteristics function

Category: 7