Court Opinion

ID: 9448728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:43:31.889948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:32.159937
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The majority’s disposition is based on two grounds: (1) the “differences [between the ’711 and ’001 patents] are not readily perceptible to the senses”; and (2) the changes between ’711 and ’001 were obvious; consequently the ’001 patent is invalid.
On the score of the first ground, the late Judge Goodrich, sitting specially in the District Court in an earlier phase of this litigation, denied Tate’s motion for summary judgment on the specific ground that the hangers made under ’001 “differed” from those made under ’711, contrary to the majority’s view and contrary to the finding of the Court below that “any differences [in the hangers] is at best negligible.”
*245I agree with Judge Goodrich’s view that the hangers are different.
As to the majority’s second point of obviousness:
While the changes in the structure of the hangers made under ’001 may be obvious after they were made, that does not mean that they were obvious before they were made.
As was said in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co., 321 U.S. 275, 279, 64 S.Ct. 593, 88 L.Ed. 721 (1944):
“Viewed after the event, the means Anthony adopted seem simple and such as should have been obvious to those who worked in the field, but this is not enough to negative invention.”
To the same effect see Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Co., 220 U.S. 428, 434, 435, 31 S.Ct. 444, 55 L.Ed. 527 (1911).
In my opinion the changes made in ’001 “were non-obvious at the time they were made; that they were the result of inventive faculty.” R. M. Palmer Company v. Luden’s, Inc., 236 F.2d 496, 498 (3 Cir., 1956).
The record here discloses ample basis for holding ’001 valid because of the “economy of production” which it made possible, with resulting decrease in cost to the ultimate consumer in the course of its tremendous commercial success.
On the score of the foregoing the District Court made the factual findings (Finding of Fact No. 20):
“ * * * it is now possible to mechanize the manufacture of the picture hanger of the patent in suit by the use of automation thereby increasing the speed of production and decreasing the cost of manufacture of same. Under the old method, eighty picture hangers were manufactured per minute with four girls working on the production line. As a result of the new method, the presently used machines produce more than two hundred picture hangers per minute with part-time attendance by one girl.”
As the late Judge Learned Hand said in Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 504 (2 Cir. 1960), cert. den. 366 U.S. 929, 81 S.Ct. 1649, 6 L.Ed.2d 388:
“ * * * economy of production is as valid a basis for invention as foresight in the disclosure of new means. In the case at bar the saving of material as compared to anything that had preceded, was very great indeed * *
To the same effect, see Entron of Maryland, Inc. v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 295 F.2d 670, 675 (4 Cir. 1961); Norman v. Lawrence, 285 F.2d 505 (2 Cir. 1960).
For the reasons stated I would reverse the judgments of the District Court.