Court Opinion

ID: 9488824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:56:35.595294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:07.484818
License: Public Domain

ARCHER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The obviousness analysis in this case is a classic example of hindsight. The district court clearly applied hindsight by taking two pieces of prior art, neither of which suggests a frame in a single piece with converging sides, and finds that such a frame would be obvious “even to one not [s]killed in the art.” The majority similarly applies hindsight by making the same conclusion based on the same prior art. Other than the invention disclosed in the patent, there is no motivation or teaching to combine converging sides in a *1092single piece frame; and in view of the strong secondary considerations, nonobviousness is the proper result. I, therefore, dissent.
The ’618 patent relates to an apparatus for converting the well-known .45 caliber Colt 1911 handgun from a 7-round capacity to a 13-round capacity magazine (or clip). Claim 1, the only independent claim, describes a frame made in a single piece with a through-bore defining a magazine chamber with converging side face portions. The specification describes the primary function of the converging side faces as providing a solid connection between the frame and the slide as well as an uninterrupted guide for the insertion of a magazine.
The district court deemed the converging side face portions as the “heart” of the invention. As a result, the court sought to determine whether prior art existed that would render this “convergence” obvious. The court focused on two prior art handguns, the Browning Hi-Power and the Llama Omni. The Browning Hi-Power has straight side faces with no convergence of any kind. Instead, the handgun utilizes an open-faced frame with a rounded front handle portion that supports the insertion of the magazine. The Llama Omni also has an open-faced frame with no convergence. However, the handgun does utilize a converging strip on the grip covers. Neither of these prior art references therefore uses converging side faces on the frame to provide a solid connection or to guide the insertion of the magazine.
For a combination of prior art references to render an invention obvious, “[t]here must be some reason, suggestion, or motivation found in the prior art whereby a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention would make the combination.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1446 (Fed.Cir.1992). That one must point to some reason, suggestion, or motivation to make a combination is not to say that the teaching must be explicit, but in order to render an invention obvious by the combination of prior art references, the record must contain some basis to rebut the presumption of validity. See, e.g., Vandenberg v. Dairy Equip. Co., 740 F.2d 1560, 1568, 224 USPQ 195, 198 (Fed.Cir.1984). A finding of obviousness on any other basis would constitute hindsight. See Interconnect Planning Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“When prior art references require selective combination by the court to render obvious a subsequent invention, there must be some reason for the combination other than the hindsight gleaned from the invention itself.”).
Neither the district court nor the majority points to any motivation or teaching for a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to use a frame made in a single piece with converging side face portions. A simple invention may be patentable, even if the invention comprises the combination of features known in the art, provided the combination itself is not obvious. See In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ 237, 243 (CCPA 1969) (“A patentable invention, within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103, may result even if the inventor has, in effect, merely combined features, old in the art, for their known purpose, without producing anything beyond the results inherent in their use.”) (emphasis omitted). Here, however, the claimed invention would not even result from a combination of the cited references. As the district court and the majority recognize, neither the Browning Hi-Power nor the Llama Omni utilizes a single frame with converging side faces. Only the Llama Omni has any convergence, and its converging elements are formed by the grip covers, not the frame. “The mere fact that elements of [an invention] may be found in various [references] does not necessarily negate invention.” In re McKenna, 203 F.2d 717, 721, 97 USPQ 348, 351 (CCPA 1953). Nevertheless, the district court and the majority find that moving the convergence from the grip covers to the frame would have been obvious.
The district court recited two grounds for its obviousness finding. The first was the court’s observation of Exhibit 77, a line drawing profiling appellant’s invention but omitting the convergence of the side faces, and the second was the testimony of the appel-lee’s expert, Mr. Findlay. The district court stated:
*1093[Exhibit] 77 is a useful way to think about it. Indeed, the Court spent some time last night making sketches of it. Almost infinite variety of configurations one could pick. And the obvious one, even to one not [s]killed in the art, would be to converge [the frame].
But in any event, I’m persuaded by Mr. Findlay’s testimony in that regard.
The majority recognizes that Exhibit 77 was improperly suggestive and may have constituted a hindsight analysis, and thus gives no weight to the exhibit. Yet, the majority nonetheless concludes that the rest of the district court’s obviousness analysis was proper. The analysis on which the majority relies, however, comprises nothing more than the testimony of Mr. Findlay, who used Exhibit 77 as the basis for his position on obviousness.1 Thus, the majority, having rejected Exhibit 77, should also have given no weight to the testimony of Mr. Findlay. If such evidence is excluded, the district court’s obviousness finding is clearly not sustainable. There is an absence of any motivation or teaching in the prior art to combine the prior art references, and there is no other probative evidence relating to obviousness.
After essentially rejecting the district court’s obviousness analysis based on the prior art, the majority proceeds to construct its own analysis of the prior art to find that the invention would have been obvious. The majority suggests that motivation for the claimed invention comes from looking into the Llama Omni with its grip covers attached but with no magazine inside and that convergence would be seen. The problem with this is that the convergence is still on the plastic handles, not the frame. To say as the majority does that viewing the Llama Omni convergence would suggest converging the frame is in my view not the teaching, suggestion, or motivation necessary to overcome the presumption of validity. It is not clear and convincing evidence of obviousness.
In addition, the record below supports nonobviousness because the prior art references teach away from making the combination in the claimed invention. For example, the district court recognized an “[a]lmost infinite variety of configurations one could pick” to form a handgun with sides that support a large capacity magazine. Supporting this is the fact that both the Browning Hi-Power and the Llama Omni handguns form the mechanical transition between the widened grip portion and the narrower top portion in some manner different than the converging side face portions used in the claimed invention. The Browning Hi-Power teaches away from using convergence at all, achieving support for the magazine through a rounded frame that does not converge. The Llama Omni utilizes three separate pieces to form the convergence. In addition to the two ways demonstrated by the prior art, the appellee’s own expert testified that there was an infinite range of possibilities to achieve the desired result. Thus, the evidence discloses a variety of ways to connect the frame with the slide and to guide the insertion of a magazine. In sum, with no motivation or teaching to combine converging side face portions with a single piece frame, and with the evidence of teaching away, the record supports a conclusion of nonobviousness. Any contrary conclusion would be based on hindsight.
The secondary considerations of nonobvi-ousness serve “as insurance against the insidious attraction of the siren hindsight.” W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851, 105 S.Ct. 172, 83 L.Ed.2d 107 (1984). Indeed, “[e]videnee of secondary considerations may often be the most probative and cogent evidence [of nonobviousness] in the record.” *1094Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed.Cir.1983). The appellant points to four secondary considerations to support nonobviousness: failure of others, long-felt need, commercial success, and copying.
The district court rejected failure of others as an indicium of nonobviousness because it was the inventor who previously attempted but failed to develop a device to convert the Colt 1911. The district court, however, said nothing about the fact that the manufacturer of the Colt 1911 had also attempted but failed to expand the magazine capacity of the Colt 1911. The record shows that it had not only tested extended length single stack magazines but also staggered magazines for expanded magazine capacity, but found them inadequate and never developed either alternative. Such a failure of others to do that which the patent claims is strong evidence of nonobviousness. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1054, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1440-41 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825, 109 S.Ct. 75, 102 L.Ed.2d 51 (1988).
The district court also found no persuasive evidence of a long-felt need for expanded capacity magazines for the Colt 1911. The court made this finding based primarily on the fact that in 1986 the U.S. military converted from the Colt 1911 to the Beretta, a nine millimeter handgun with a 15-round capacity. As the district court recognized, the Colt 1911 had been used by the U.S. military at least since 1911 but neither the Colt manufacturer nor any other manufacturer had developed a .45 caliber handgun with an expanded capacity magazine. There was obviously a need at the time of the conversion to the Beretta handgun, and even the district court recognized such a need was present from the mid- to late-1980s. A long-felt need is also persuasive evidence of non-obviousness.
Although the district court found that there had been commercial success, the court rejected this secondary consideration because of the absence of “any evidence to show that this commercial success is related to an invention that the patentee claims to have made.” In discussing commercial success in the obviousness analysis, the court correctly pointed out that there must be a nexus between the sales and the merits of the invention. Kansas Jack, Inc. v. Kuhn, 719 F.2d 1144, 1151, 219 USPQ 857, 861 (Fed.Cir.1983). But see Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nur-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714, 719, 21 USPQ2d 1053, 1058 (Fed.Cir.1991) (“[PJrima facie evidence of nexus is established if there was commercial success and if the invention disclosed in the patent was that which was commercially successful.”). The district court pointed to advertising and the sponsorship of competitive shooting teams as the principal reasons for appellant’s commercial success. While there were contradictory statements in the record as to the reasons for the commercial success, I am not persuaded that either of these activities overcomes the evidence that commercial success was the result of the invention claimed in the ’618 patent being the first to enable an expansion of the magazine capacity for the Colt 1911. Further, appellee’s attack upon the commercial success of the patented invention is less credible where appellee makes or sells an exact copy of the patented invention as discussed below. Finally, even if the district court was correct in finding other reasons for commercial success, the other secondary considerations discussed are overwhelming evidence of nonobviousness.
The district court also found evidence of copying but rejected this consideration. Copying of a patented invention is indicative of nonobviousness. Windsurfing Int'l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1000, 228 USPQ 562, 565 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 477 U.S. 905, 106 S.Ct. 3275, 91 L.Ed.2d 565 (1986). The district court’s conclusion on this point is also erroneous. The appellee conceded at trial that the accused handgun reads on one or more claims of the ’618 patent, only disclaiming infringement because of the wording of the preamble. Appellee’s frames, grip covers, and magazines are clearly exact copies except for the location of the magazine catch hole, yet the magazines are compatible for either handgun. In addition to manufacturing handguns that read directly on the ’618 patent claims, appellant alleges, and the record does not indicate otherwise, that appellee also converted Llama models that were *1095clones of the Colt 1911 into expanded capacity handguns (for the conversions, the frame, grip covers, and magazine of the Llama IX-A and IX-B were simply replaced to produce handguns covered by the claims of the patented invention). Appellee, therefore, may have utilized the very conversion kit methodology set forth in the preamble of the claims. The evidence of copying provides persuasive support for nonobviousness.
For all of the reasons stated above, the conclusion is inescapable that the district court applied hindsight and failed to give adequate weight to the secondary considerations in reaching its obviousness determination. Unfortunately, the majority opinion now makes the same mistake. Accordingly, I dissent.

. The appellee’s expert always explained his position on obviousness in terms of Exhibit 77. Even though the expert also made comparisons of the Browning Hi-Power and the Llama Omni with the patented invention, in proffering obviousness the expert only gave conclusory reasons why one skilled in the art would choose to make the combination of the prior art references. The appellant’s expert, in contrast, presented more than mere conclusory statements. The expert explained that one skilled in the art of handgun manufacture would not have necessarily chosen to create a convergence in the frame based on manufacturing considerations, noting that the preferred embodiment of the patented invention utilizes investment casting, whereas the art of handgun manufacture had predominately relied upon electro-chemical machining.