Court Opinion

ID: 9457269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:17:29.877016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:17.191241
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Each of the elements of claim 5 was an old concept; only the combination was new. The issue is whether the combination “would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art” of washing cars, or perhaps the art of making car-washing equipment. 35 U.S.C. § 103.
There are two ways to try to answer this question. One approach is to consider what was obvious to actual artisans. Many people for many years have been familiar with car-washing equipment. Yet Tompkins was the first to recognize the benefits to be gained from this unique combination of concepts. As a matter of fact, he was a pioneer in a crowd. If the combination was obvious, others in the crowd would certainly have recognized it. Under this approach the issues of novelty and obviousness tend to merge.
A second approach is to consider what would have been obvious to a hypothetical artisan who, having all of the prior art at hand, set out to design an improved car-washing machine. Such an artisan, although his skill might have been ordinary, would have commenced his work with a truly extraordinary background. With such preparation a host of valuable new combinations might be obvious to a man with ordinary skills. Under this approach the obviousness hurdle would make a patent a rare prize reserved to reward a person with creative talents transcending an ordinary artisan’s skill. I think Congress has directed us to follow this second approach. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 14, 15, 19, 36, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545.
We must therefore, assume that our hypothetical artisan was thoroughly familiar with the fact that a generally L-shaped configuration of spray heads, mounted in a manner that permitted en*814circlement of a car, would do a better washing job than various other configurations ;1 that encirclement could be achieved by mounting the spray heads on an endless, generally rectangular, overhead track; 2 and that an electric motor was a suitable substitute for manual operation.3 With knowledge of these three concepts, in my opinion it would have taken no more than ordinary skill to foresee the advantages of combining them. I think the invention was “obvious” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

. British Patent No. 171,025 to Baker, published October 20, 1954, describes a vehicle-washing apparatus with an L-shaped configuration of water spraying tubes which simultaneously spray the roof and a side while being moved around a vehicle.
French Patent No. 1,028,242 to Kous-netzoff-Poliakoff, published May 20, 1953, although describing a configuration which more clearly followed the contours of a vehicle than a simple upside down L, contemplated that general type of configuration.
“II est bien entendu que la présente description n’a d’autre but que de préciser les earactéristiques de l’invention mais que celle-ci est susceptible de variantes dans les détails, suivant les différentes applications qui en seraient faites.”

. United States Patent No. 1,148,690 to Klingensmith, dated August 3, 1915, disclosed an “oblong-endless-channel-track * * * above the top of the vehicle positioned thereunder to be washed. * !|! * ” P. 1 lines 44 — 45, 55-56. “By making the track oblong, an automobile may be placed thereunder in such a position that the hose may be swung, when in a substantially vertical position, completely around the automobile without striking the same.” P. 2 lines 38-43.

. Automatic car washing was disclosed by United States Patent No. 2,676,600 to Vani, dated April 27, 1954, and by United States Patent No. 2,703,579 to Merancy, dated March 8, 1955.