Court Opinion

ID: 9455889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:36:38.763683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:46.756471
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The majority adopts the district court’s conclusion that the defendant failed to carry its burden of proving the Cochran invention was invalid because it was “obvious.” 35 U.S.C. § 103. The essential contribution of the Cochran invention to the existing plan of the water scalping sand classifying tank was the replacement of manually set valves with valves controlled by cumulative electric timers. The Cochran system thus made the tank more capable of producing a uniform final product. However, this result was accomplished by utilizing electric timers, which had long been commercially available, and having them perform functions substantially similar to those which they discharged in other fields. Thus, I believe the district court erred in concluding that the Cochran invention would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the pertinent art at the time the invention was made.