Court Opinion

ID: 9446816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:18:55.851675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:47.467071
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
As I read the majority opinion, the principal reason for holding the patent in suit invalid is that one having ordinary skill in the art would find the claimed invention obvious. Also, emphasis is laid on the fact that the device of the patent in suit has not been manufactured on a commercial basis.
Defendant pleaded lack of novelty but didn’t prove it. Defendant’s expert in effect conceded there was no anticipation to be found in any of the seventy-two prior art patents dating back to 1837 which defendant produced after three intensive searches.
The District Court heard the testimony of experts on both sides. The models, the accused device and some of the prior art references were explained to the Court by these witnesses. They also explained various charts.
The District Court found the prior art relied upon by defendant is no better than that cited and considered by the Patent Office. Defendant’s expert Smith testified the closest reference in the prior art was McBride Patent No. 2,386,702. This patent was also the principal reference in the Patent Office. In Paragon-Revolute Corp. v. C. F. Pease Co., 7 Cir., 239 F.2d 746, at page 748, we said:
“ * * * Furthermore, it is well settled that where the alleged invalidity is based upon a patent which was before the Patent Office and was rejected as an *106anticipation of the invention, the presumption of novelty and invention is greatly strengthened. * * * ” See also, Artmoore Co. v. Dayless Mfg. Co., Inc., 7 Cir., 208 F.2d 1, and Hunt v. Armour & Co., 7 Cir., 185 F.2d 722.
In my view, the findings of the District Court that the invention of the Dorey Patent in suit would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, are not clearly erroneous and should be sustained. The same is true on the question of infringement. Furthermore, because the owner of a patent has not manufactured the device on a commercial scale does not reflect upon the validity of the patent.
I would sustain the judgment of the District Court.