Court Opinion

ID: 9454678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:54:25.125306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:14.267161
License: Public Domain

CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
Although concurring in the first part of the Court’s opinion, I am persuaded that the patent is invalid for obviousness for reasons given by the district court. See 159 U.S.P.Q. 423, 427-431 (N.D.Ill. 1968). The district judge’s careful analysis of the prior art available at the time of the Gawron application does not appear to depend in any respect upon his conclusion concerning the presumption of validity to which the patent would ordinarily be entitled. He found a “clear lack of invention,” and also determined that advancement in the rectifier field, including a drop in price in silicon controlled rectifier circuits, rather than any discovery on Gawron’s part was ultimately responsible for the development of the inexpensive and practicable portable tool shown in the Gawron patent. He concluded that plaintiff’s large advertising expenditures and the lack of industry-wide statistics neutralized the significance of commercial success as a secondary index of obviousness.
I would adopt the district court’s opinion with respect to obviousness and would affirm on that ground.