Court Opinion

ID: 9457680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:29:35.418612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:27.613880
License: Public Domain

ELY, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent. After a very carefully conducted trial, the district judge concluded, inter alia, as follows:
“III.
“United States patent No. 3,197,204 is good and valid in law.
“IV.
“The exerciser of patent No. 3,197,204, and as defined by the claims thereof, was not obvious at the time the invention was made to even a person skilled in the exerciser and/or physical education art, let alone to a person having ordinary skill in such art (35 U.S.C. § 103). Although the strict test of ‘flash of creative genius’ referred to by the Supreme Court in Cuno [Engineering] Corp. v. Autpmatic Devices Corp., 314 U.S. 84 [62 S.Ct. 37, 86 L.Ed. 58] (1941), was apparently abolished by Congress by the inclusion of the last sentence in Section 103 of Title 35, United States Code (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 [1966]), the completely new type of exerciser of the patent in suit appears to be the result of just such a flash of creative genius, which is a further attribute of true invention. There were also the unexpected results and unusual and surprising consequences referred to in Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147 [71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950)].
“V.
“Patent No. 3,197,204 is presumed to be valid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 282, and this presumption of validity is strengthened where, as here, the prior patents relied upon by the defendants are no more pertinent than the reference patents cited by the Patent Office examiners. Neff Instrument Corporation v. Cohu Electronics, Inc., 298 F.2d 82, 86 (9 Cir. 1961) and Radio Corporation of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, 293 U.S. 1, 54 S.Ct. 752, 79 L.Ed. 163 (1934).
“VI.
“The copying of the exerciser of the patent in suit by the defendants is further evidence of invention; they were familiar with its construction, its use and its advantages, and the demand which had been created for it. The prior art relied on by the defendants was permitted to lay dormant for more than half a century until the trial of this infringement action. Ric-Wil Co. v. E. B. Kaiser Co., 179 F.2d 401, 404, (7 Cir. 1950), and Colgate-Palmolive Company v. Carter Products, 230 F.2d 855, 862 (4 Cir. 1956), cert, denied, 352 U.S. 843, 77 S.Ct. 43, 1 L.Ed.2d 59.
“VII.
“The high degree of commercial success of the exerciser of patent No. 3,197,204 is further evidence of invention. National Sponge Co. v. Rubber *137Corp. of Cal, 286 F.2d 731, 736 (9 Cir. 1961) and Hayes Spray Gun Company v. E. C. Brown Company, 291 F.2d 319 (9 Cir. 1961).”
The record reflects an abundance of evidence to support the factual findings which constitute the foundation for the foregoing legal conclusions and, while I recognize the validity of the general principles so carefully set forth by my Brother Browning, I am not persuaded that they are being correctly applied in the case at hand. As I see it, the proper resolution of the critical factual issues was difficult; hence, I would affirm the judgment because I cannot say with positive assurance that Judge Hill’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.