Court Opinion

ID: 9448642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:42:07.035837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:30.786701
License: Public Domain

MEDINA, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Indeed, the combination seems “obvious” once the prior art is understood and Schliephacke’s patent is explained. The mechanism is very simple, and man flatters himself by concluding that such combinations are obvious; simplicity, once explained, tends to be obvious to all men. But hindsight is not the test of patentability. 35 U.S.C. § 103; Copease Mfg. Co. v. American Photocopy Equip. Co., 7 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 772, 781; Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Shelby Poultry Co., 4 Cir., 1961, 293 F.2d 127, 131; Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 2 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 501, cert. denied, 1961, 366 U.S. 929, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed.2d 388; Compare Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 1944, 321 U.S. 275, 279, 64 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed. 721.
We should take care to see that “obvious” does not become a meaningless word, used to justify preconceived notions. When the record furnishes a basis for resort to objective evidence, such signposts should be given primary consideration by the Court.1 As stated by Judge Learned Hand in Reiner v. I. Leon, supra, at page 504:
“To judge on our own that this or that new assemblage of old factors was, or was not, ‘obvious’ is to substitute our ignorance for the acquaintance with the subject of those who were familiar with it.”
Rather than rely on our own hindsight as to the perspicuity of the fictional or theoretical “person having ordinary skill in the art,” we should use what objective evidence is relevant, keeping in mind that the “person” is assumed to be familiar with all the prior art material, see 35 U.S.C. Section 102, (Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A. § 1 to § 110 at p. 21 [1954]), despite the fact that workers in the field may not be.
It is not nor can it be with any show of reason denied that the proofs in this case demonstrate that the trade had for a long period of time recognized the need to improve the economy of construction and simplicity of operation of reclining chairs, and at the same time to achieve an extension of the leg rest adequate to support the legs of the occupant; all this to be done in a chair that will “balance” well, i. e., move easily and stay in any position without the use of springs. These are the features found in Schliephacke’s chair. Such a recognized need of long standing is clearly relevant to the issue of obviousness. The existence and recognition of this need is amply attested by the facts of the case. And it seems to me to be no answer at all to say that the “problem” to which the workers in the field were addressing themselves was not sufficiently “specific.” See Entron of Maryland, Inc. v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 4 Cir., 1961, 295 F.2d 670; Honolulu Oil Corp. v. Shelby Poultry Co., supra; Reiner v. I. Leon Co., supra; Norman v. Lawrence, 2 Cir., 1960, 285 F.2d 505; American Safety Table Co. v. Schreiber, 2 Cir., 1959, 269 F.2d 255, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 915, 80 S.Ct. 259, 4 L.Ed.2d 185.
Patents for reclining chairs appear as early as 1852, and there are today well over one hundred and fifty patents in the field. Despite this number, the need for a chair with Schliephacke’s improvements still existed, as is shown by the fact that within but six years prior to the issuance of the patent in suit, no less than thirteen patents for reclining chairs were issued. Schliephacke’s success where others had failed is shown by “the immediate adoption of the Schliephacke *107device by the trade,” and its use as a substitute for what had gone before.
The prior art patents, as well as the testimony at the trial, make it clear that many were “trying to find the way.” Of the twenty-seven prior art patents specifically relied on by the alleged infringer, twenty-three are to different patentees. How many more were trying to find the way, but failed to make a patentable advance, can only be surmised. The reclining chair industry appears to have been highly competitive, and practical incentive was not lacking.
The means by which Schliephacke satisfied the need were long available and known to those trying to achieve the same result. Links and pivots are of nearly ancient origin, and have been used by designers of reclining chairs at least since 1852. Hammitt, Patent No. 9,449 (1852). The means were before the eyes of those who sought to design a chair with the features of the Schliephacke chair.
To say now in retrospect that the patented combination was “obvious” is totally to ignore the evidence that though the means were well known, none of the many who worked for years to obtain the result achieved by Schliephacke thought of making this allegedly “obvious” combination. The issue of obviousness should be decided by the use of this type of objective evidence as a yardstick. Otherwise, we are pretending to decide what was or was not obvious to the worker in the field in question, but really making a guess, a mere stab in the dark, on the basis of our own very limited, personal experience, what Judge Learned Hand calls our “ignorance.” And we make this guess only after the secret that lies at the base of the alleged invention has been explained to us. Thus some of us say “this is just a gadget” and some of us say “no.” This is one of the reasons why the decision of patent cases in this Circuit seems sometimes to depend upon the particular combination of judges sitting on the panel that decides each case.
Moreover, while it seems to be popular nowadays to cry down the Patent Office, I should like to take this occasion to say that after several years as a District Judge, and over ten years of experience on this Court deciding patent cases, I think the Patent Office is doing a good' job.
In my opinion the patent is valid and the case should be reversed and remanded for a new trial at which the issue of infringement may be determined.

. E.g., Ekstrom-Carlson & Co. v. Onsrud Machine Works, Inc., 7 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 765, 770; Entron of Maryland, Inc. v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 4 Cir., 1961, 295 F.2d 670, 675; Bewal Inc. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 10 Cir., 1961, 292 F.2d 159, 165. Compare Reviser’s Note, 35 U.S.O.A. § 1 to § 110 at p. 715 (1954) (“[Section 103 is] * * * to serve as a basis for the addition at a later time of some criteria which may be worked out.”).