Court Opinion

ID: 9470413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:05:33.83316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:53.323196
License: Public Domain

*1015NIES, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the judgment of the Claims Court that the asserted claims of the Wolf patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be affirmed. In my view, the majority adopts portions of the trial judge’s opinion which are unnecessary to the issues on appeal and, thus, to a great extent the majority’s opinion is dictum.
Appellants make no attack on use of Andrews-Vibbard as a prior art reference apart from the fact that it is a large, expensive, and specialized machine which a businessman would not have considered a practical tool to use in connection with selection of the items of merchandise ordered by a customer or for preparing a pricing invoice. I agree with the majority that this argument does not destroy the relevancy of Andrews-Vibbard.
The trial judge found that the apparatus disclosed in Nelson-Robinson and AndrewsVibbard can be physically combined. Appellants do not show any error in this conclusion. In view of the teachings of these prior art references and the problem confronting the inventor, the trial judge did not err in holding that the subject invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art on the record before him.