Court Opinion

ID: 9470409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:05:33.142952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:53.295234
License: Public Domain

OSCAR H. DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result.
I join in Parts I and II B of Judge Nichols’ opinion. As for Part II A, my judicial microscope suggests to me that, if the prior art is considered alone, the case is much closer than his opinion indicates. Differences there are, of course, between appellant’s invention and the prior art, but it is not plain to me, from the bare references alone (especially those disclosing or suggesting transfer printing on lace and other rough-textured or somewhat “sculptured” material), that the invention was not obvious from the prior art. I need not, however, decide that unclear question on the references alone. For me thé crucial insight is the “secondary consideration” of commercial success which (as Part II B of the main opinion spells out) appellant has fully proved, the Solicitor has not sought to rebut and has admitted was before the Board, and the Board failed properly to consider. Under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693-694, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), that type of success is a relevant factor, and in this close case I think it decisive in showing nonobviousness.