Court Opinion

ID: 9447042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:23:38.868773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:52.458337
License: Public Domain

*73SWAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
In recent years this court has sustained few design patents. Were I sitting alone, I should be disposed to hold that the design of the patent in suit does not differ sufficiently from the prior art — particularly Patent Des. No. 167,490 to Van Koert and Patent Des. No. 172,006 to Conroy et al. — to establish that “invention” was required to create it. But what is “invention” in a design is a matter upon which one can seldom reasonably hold a dogmatic opinion. My brothers are satisfied that the patent in suit is valid. While not free from doubt, I am willing to concur in their judgment.