Court Opinion

ID: 9451392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:16:43.504334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:43.261203
License: Public Domain

KIRKPATRICK, Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the decision of the majority as to the non-obviousness of the invention. The majority opinion points out that the sprinkler nozzle of Fiad is attached by a threaded connection to his oscillating carrier, and it appears to me quite obvious that, if the nozzle is turned on its thread, the width of the spray pattern will vary. The fact that Fiad preferred other means to vary the width of the pattern does not affect the obviousness of this physical fact.
Given this disclosure, providing a joint which permits the rotation of the nozzle, means to make the joint waterproof and means to keep it in the desired position, produces no new functions with respect to the parts individually nor any new or surprising result of the parts assembled as a whole. The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 86 S.Ct. 684, February 21, 1966, has set forth the tests for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 which, when applied to the facts here, should, I believe, result in the affirmance of the board.