Court Opinion

ID: 9454085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:35:38.381552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:57.803642
License: Public Domain

CRAVEN Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The court concedes, as I read the opini°n> that what makes the thing work is better radiant heat generators of the Schwank type. It is not even contended that Pavement Salvage can monopolize such improvements. Nor is it demonstrated to my satisfaction that the combination on one chassis of the paving machine and heat generator is necessary to produce the desired result. Yet, the combination is held patentable, though for a11 we know the same desired result may be achieved by two machines juxtaposed and separately propelled,
i adopt what was said by Judge Field in his unpublished opinion below:
“[Plaintiff has combined four elements which were known in the prior art- Three of the elements, the screed, Reveler and spreader, when constructed on one chassis would not be a patentable invention- However, plaintiff added to this combination the element of a radiant burner. The burner, by itself, is also not patentable. Therefore, the question here is whether the addition of the burner to the paving machine which contains the other three elements has *455overcome the obviousness of the total combination.
“* * * Plaintiff’s patent is a combination patent. The question of radiant heat was old in the art. The pivotal question would more logically appear to be, assuming that the radiant heat would work effectively, was it obvious that a more successful machine would evolve if all of the elements were constructed on one chassis? It is my opinion that such a combination was reasonably obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art.
******
“In [Great] A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket [Equipment] Corporation, 340 U.S. 147 [71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162] (1950) the Court made the following statements:
‘It is agreed that the key to patent-ability of a mechanical device that brings old factors into cooperation is presence or lack of invention.
******
‘The negative rule accrued from many litigations was condensed about as precisely as the subject permits in Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545, 549 [58 S.Ct. 662, 82 L.Ed. 1008]: “The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention.”
‘The conjunction or concert of known elements must contribute something; only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable. Elements may, of course, especially in chemistry or electronics, take on some new quality or function from being brought into concert, but this is not a usual result of uniting elements old in mechanics.’
“The Court then makes this meaningful observation:
‘Courts should scrutinize combination patent claims with a care proportioned to the difficulty and improbability of finding invention in an assembly of old elements.’
“Plaintiff contends that its combination of elements has solved the age-old problems of asphalt paving; that the invention has, by its combination, produced a new result which has advanced the art, and further points to its commercial success and the fact that it has answered a long-felt want.
“Entrón of Maryland v. Jerrold [Electronics Corp.], 295 F.2d 670 (4th Cir. 1961), set forth the standard for determining whether the elements of a combination exhibit a new result in the following language:
‘The inquiry should more appropriately be directed to whether the elements of the combination perform or produce a new, different or additional function or operation * * * in the combination than that theretofore performed or produced by them.’
“It is my opinion that plaintiff’s combination in no way exceeds the sum of its parts. Each element of the combination performs in the same manner and performs the same job that it formerly did when not in combination. All that plaintiff has done is to construct four elements known in the prior art on one chassis. In regard to plaintiff’s contention of commercial success, see A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., supra, at 153, wherein the Court stated:
‘The Court of Appeals and the respondent both lean heavily on evidence that this device filled a long-felt want and has enjoyed commercial success. But commercial success without invention will not make patentability * *.’
“Based upon the foregoing, it is my opinion that the Neville patent is not a valid patent. * * * ”
I think Judge Field correctly adjudged invalidity of the patent and that the court, in reversing his decision, ignores the teaching of Lincoln Engineering Co. *456v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 303 U.S. 545, 549, 58 S.Ct. 662, 82 L.Ed. 1008 (1938), relied upon by the district court.
I respectfully dissent.