Court Opinion

ID: 9452613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 17:46:25.688329+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:17.394621
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Judge
(dissenting).
My disagreement with the majority is twofold: (1) The majority opinion does not give effect to the test for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as recently stated by the United States Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed. 2d 545:
* * * Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined ; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.
* * *
If this test is applied to the present record, the numerous differences between the prior art and the claims at issue would lead to the conclusion that the claims are directed to an unobvious invention.
(2) It is only by a hindsight reconstruction of the prior art in the light of appellants’ disclosure that the majority can so combine the several references as to support a rejection under section 103. The mandate of section 103 is that the determination of obviousness must be made as of the time appellants made their invention. The prior art as reconstructed by the majority did not exist at such time. It was only by reason of appellants’ invention that such reconstruction is now made. The art prior to appellants’ filing date does not suggest this reconstruction.
I would, therefore, reverse the decision of the board.