Court Opinion

ID: 9486008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:35:49.087841+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:29.346854
License: Public Domain

LOURIE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the panel’s holding 'that the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 is unpatentable on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I believe the Board erred in determining that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to replace the alphanumeric display system of Savary with a video display system to produce the claimed invention.
In concluding that the claimed invention would have been obvious, the Board relied upon (1) language in the specification of the Savary patent stating that the delivery pump’s display can be “any conventional system” and (2) a discussion of flat-panel visual displays found in a reference relating to chemical technology. However, these references do not provide the requisite teaching or motivation to suggest the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
*1041The fuel delivery system of the Savary patent uses a display panel showing the volume and price of the fuel dispensed. Nowhere in the Savary patent is there even a remote suggestion to use a CRT to show that information. In fact, the specification reveals that the display described by Savary is of the seven-segment type, which is only capable of displaying alphanumeric characters. When considered in the context of the disclosure of Savary, the reference to “any conventional system” is necessarily limited to alternative types of alphanumeric displays, and does not include video image displays.
The Board’s critical determination that “CRT displays are known in the art as being equivalent to LED or LCD displays,” upon which its holding was based, was clearly erroneous. The Board, relying upon the discussion in the Kirk-Othmer reference that flat-panel displays “may eventually displace the bulky and fragile cathode ray tube,” concluded that “choice of display is simply a matter of obvious design tradeoff involving the factors of expense, size, or bulkyness [sic], fragility, viewing conditions and power supply availability.” That, however, ignores the substance of Savary which makes CRT displays not equivalent to LED or • LCD-based alphanumeric displays in the context of that disclosure. Moreover, it ignores the added benefits of the Raynes invention. A primary object of the claimed invention is the provision of nonconventional information to the motorist at the fuel pump. Such information may include advertisements and personalized greetings in the form of graphic video images. The use of a CRT or video display in the Raynes invention provides benefits not possible with Savary. The Savary invention is incapable of producing video images. Thus, we should conclude that the claimed system is sufficiently different from the references to call it un-Savary.
Because the use of a video display in the Savary system is not suggested or taught by the prior art, I would reverse the Board’s obviousness decision.