Greening Nursery Co. v. J R Tool Mfg. Co.

19 Citing cases

  1. Tate v. Scanlan International, Inc.

    403 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Upholding a jury's verdict that an unpatented idea for a surgical supply product was sufficiently novel and concrete for an award of damages for its conversion

    In order for the aggregation of known elements to satisfy the novelty requirement, their conjunction must contribute something, that is, the whole must exceed the sum of its parts. Greening Nursery Co. v. J. and R. Tool and Manufacturing Co., 376 F.2d 738, 740 (8th Cir. 1967). Appellant asserts that respondent's idea is an obvious combination of previously developed products (Tip Guards, and the Kittner Sponge foam block), and is therefore not novel and not subject to legal protection.

  2. Arbrook, Inc. v. American Hosp. Supply Corp.

    645 F.2d 273 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 24 times
    In Arbrook the plaintiff's conduct in prosecution of a patent application was the basis for the award and any quotation from the case must be read in that context. It does not provide authority for the rule of law asserted by Oakwood.

    he patent when it precedes it. E. g., American Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 1931, 283 U.S. 1, 14, 51 S.Ct. 328, 331, 75 L.Ed. 801, 808; Imperial Stone Cutters, Inc. v. Schwartz, 8 Cir. 1966, 370 F.2d 425, 429; Chemical Construction Corp. v. Jones Laughlin Steel Corp., 3 Cir. 1962, 311 F.2d 367, 373. A patent claim is anticipated when all of its claimed elements (or their equivalents) are found in a single unit of prior art. Steelcase, Inc. v. Delwood Furniture Co., 5 Cir. 1978, 578 F.2d 74, 78-79, cert. denied, 440 U.S. 960, 99 S.Ct. 1503, 59 L.Ed.2d 774 (1979); American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co., 6 Cir. 1978, 586 F.2d 611, cert. denied, 441 U.S. 907, 99 S.Ct. 1999, 60 L.Ed.2d 377 (1979); Paeco, Inc. v. Applied Moldings, Inc., 3 Cir. 1977, 562 F.2d 870, 875; Shanklin Corp. v. Springfield Photo Mount Co., 1 Cir. 1975, 521 F.2d 609, 616, cert. denied, 424 U.S. 914, 96 S.Ct. 1112, 47 L.Ed.2d 318 (1978); Greening Nursery Co. v. J R Tool Manufacturing Co., 8 Cir. 1967, 376 F.2d 738; Edward M. Marshall, C.C.P.A. 1978, 578 F.2d 301; General Electric Co. v. United States, Ct.Cl. 1978, 572 F.2d 745, 768. A comparison of the elements of Claim 2 with the features of the Carrier machine makes it plain that the Carrier machine anticipated Nappi's invention point by point.

  3. Reinke Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Sidney Mfg. Corp.

    594 F.2d 644 (8th Cir. 1979)   Cited 12 times

    Because we affirm the district court's finding that the patents are invalid for reasons of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is not necessary to consider the issue of infringement. There can be no infringement of an invalid patent. Greening Nursery Co. v. J R Tool Mfg. Co., 376 F.2d 738, 742 (8th Cir. 1967). 35 U.S.C. § 103 provides:

  4. American Seating Co. v. National Seating Co.

    586 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1978)   Cited 20 times

    device or their equivalents be found in a single preexisting structure or description. Tee-Pak, Inc. v. St. Regis Paper Co., supra, 491 F.2d at 1198; A.J. Indus., Inc. v. Dayton Steel Foundry Co., 394 F.2d 357, 359 (6th Cir. 1968); Monroe Auto Equip. Co., v. Heckethorn Mfg. Supply Co., supra, 332 F.2d at 414; Performed Line Prods. Co. v. Fanner Mfg. Co., 328 F.2d 265, 271 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 846, 85 S.Ct. 56, 13 L.Ed.2d 51 (1964); Firestone v. Aluminum Co. of America, 285 F.2d 928, 930 (6th Cir. 1960); Allied Wheel Prods., Inc. v. Rude, supra, 206 F.2d at 760; accord, Norton Co. v. Carborundum Co., 530 F.2d 435, 442 n. 18 (1st Cir. 1976); Kahn v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 508 F.2d 939, 943 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 930, 95 S.Ct. 1657, 44 L.Ed.2d 88 (1975); Decca Ltd. v. United States, 420 F.2d 1010, 1027-28, 190 Ct.Cl. 454, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 865, 91 S.Ct. 102, 27 L.Ed.2d 104 (1970); Amphenol Corp. v. General Time Corp., 397 F.2d 431, 438 (7th Cir. 1968); Greening Nursery Co. v. J R Tool Mfg. Co., 376 F.2d 738, 740 (8th Cir. 1967); Inglett Co. v. Everglades Fertilizer Co., 255 F.2d 342, 345 (5th Cir. 1958); Deller's Walker on Patents § 57 at 242, § 58 at 249, and § 77 at 374-76 (2d ed. 1964). American next argues that even if the equivalency of the tubular inverted "T" pedestal and the round base pedestals is an appropriate consideration in determining the issue of anticipation, the District Court erred in finding the pedestals to be equivalents.

  5. Maloney-Crawford Tank Corp. v. Sauder Tank

    465 F.2d 1356 (10th Cir. 1972)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that, while finding a particular claim within a patent invalid does not invalidate the entire patent, individual claims "stand or fall alone"

    Although the prior art did recognize a system wherein the liquid (brine) was self-created within the system, the prior art did not include a system within which large volumes of gas could be dehydrated with very little liquid formed, nor did the prior art envision a system in which the liquid down flow was independent of the vapor upflow. We are aware that mere improvements are not patentable. Greening Nursery Company v. J and R Tool and Manufacturing Company, 376 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1967); Shelco, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company, 322 F. Supp. 485 (N.D.Ill. 1970). However, new and useful manufacture as well as new and useful improvement is patentable. Plant Economy, Inc. v. Mirror Insulation Co., 202 F. Supp. 873 (D.N.J. 1962); Waldes Kohinoor, Inc. v. Industrial Retaining Ring Co., 198 F. Supp. 755 (D.N.J. 1961).

  6. Flour City Architectural Metals v. Alpana Aluminum Products, Inc.

    454 F.2d 98 (8th Cir. 1972)   Cited 19 times

    But, in Gallo v. Norris Dispensers, Inc., 445 F.2d 649 (8th Cir. 1971), another panel, relying on Rule 52(a), noted as to the obviousness question: Accord, Greening Nursery Co. v. J and R Tool and Manufacturing Co., 376 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1967).See Comment, Obviousness in the Eighth Circuit, 14 St. Louis U.L.J. 672 (1970), for an extensive review and analysis of post- Graham patent cases in the Eighth Circuit.

  7. Woodstream Corporation v. Herter's, Inc.

    446 F.2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 15 times

    With these basic principles in mind, we turn to an examination of the obviousness of the patents in issue. This court has considered the question of obviousness in Ralston Purina Co. v. General Foods Corp., 442 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1971) (Simulated meat); Agrashell, Inc. v. Hammons Products Company, 413 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1969) (Method of using black walnut shells for abrasive purposes); University of Illinois Foundation v. Winegard Company, 402 F.2d 125 (8th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 917, 89 S.Ct. 1191, 22 L.Ed. 452 (1969) (Television antenna); National Connector Corporation v. Malco Manufacturing Company, 392 F.2d 766 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 89 S.Ct. 254 (1968) (Self-locking electric terminals); Gerner v. Moog Industries, Inc., 383 F.2d 56 (8th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 922, 88 S.Ct. 855, 19 L.Ed.2d 981 (1968) (Automobile steering linkage idler); General Mills, Inc. v. Pillsbury Company, 378 F.2d 666 (8th Cir. 1967) (One stage cake mix); Greening Nursery Co. v. J and R Tool and Mfg. Co., 376 F.2d 738 (8th Cir. 1967) (Tree wrapping machine); Imperial Stone Cutters, Inc. v. Schwartz, 370 F.2d 425 (8th Cir. 1966) (Stone cutting machine); Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc. v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., 369 F.2d 353 (8th Cir. 1966) (Outside hanger assembly for suspended concrete forms); L A Products, Inc. v. Britt Tech Corporation, 365 F.2d 833 (8th Cir. 1966) (Soap and water mixing valve); Piel Manufacturing Company v. George A. Rolfes Co., 363 F.2d 57 (8th Cir. 1966) (Animal oiler); Automated Building Components, Inc. v. Hydro-Air Engineering, Inc., 362 F.2d 989 (8th Cir. 1966) (Structural joint connector); Skee-Trainer, Inc. v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 361 F.2d 895 (8th Cir. 1966) (Water ski attachments); Kell-Dot Industries, Inc. v. Graves, 361 F.2d 25 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 842, 87 S.Ct. 95, 17 L.Ed. 2d 75 (1966) (Food processing machine for making Korn Kurls); American Infra-Red Radiant Co. v. Lambert Industries, Inc., 360 F.2d 977 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 920, 87 S.Ct. 233, 17

  8. Ralston Purina Co. v. Gen. Foods Corp.

    442 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 20 times

    Thus, it concluded that Rusoff was void because the use of these prior advances to achieve the Rusoff result and the result itself were obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention. In reviewing this determination by the District Court we will, as we have traditionally, give considerable weight to its factual determinations underlying the decision of obviousness even though that issue is one of law which we shall rule on ourselves. Greening Nursey Company v. J and R Tool and Manufacturing Company, 8 Cir., 1967, 376 F.2d 738, 742. Findings of fact in patent cases are not to be set aside unless clearly erroneous under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), Rota-Carb Corporation v. Frye Manufacturing Company, 8 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 443, 444; Collins v. Owen, 8 Cir., 1962, 310 F.2d 884, 887, but Courts of Appeals are not bound by this standard where "* * * the evidence is documentary or where it involves the actual examination of a product * * *." Deep Welding, Inc. v. Sciaky Bros., Inc., 7 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 1227, 1229, cert. denied, 1970, 397 U.S. 1037, 90 S.Ct. 1354, 25 L.Ed.2d 648.

  9. Agrashell, Inc. v. Hammons Products Company

    413 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1969)   Cited 4 times

    The barrier of 35 U.S.C. § 103 applies and the condition of nonobviousness therein stated is not fulfilled. See L A Products, Inc. v. Britt Tech. Corp., 365 F.2d 83 (8 Cir. 1966); Greening Nursery Co. v. J R Tool Mfg. Co., 376 F.2d 738 (8 Cir. 1967); General Mills, Inc. v. Pillsbury Co., 378 F.2d 666 (8 Cir. 1967); Gerner v. Moog Indus. Inc., 383 F.2d 56 (8 Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 922, 88 S.Ct. 855, 19 L.Ed.2d 981; National Connector Corp v. Malco Mfg. Co., 392 F.2d 766 (8 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 923, 89 S.Ct. 254, 21 L.Ed.2d 259; University of Illinois Foundation v. Winegard Co., 402 F.2d 125 (8 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 917, 89 S.Ct. 1191, 22 L.Ed. 452. We are aware of the suggestion that the Eighth Circuit has not upheld any patent since the Supreme Court decided Graham v. John Deere Co., by an opinion which concerned three cases emanating from this court.

  10. National Connector Corp. v. Malco Mfg. Co.

    392 F.2d 766 (8th Cir. 1968)   Cited 18 times

    Malco's own witness stated that with the need to make a pin suitable for the wire wrap machine that it was "logical to go to square or rectangular shank." Cf. Greening Nursery Co. v. J R Tool Mfg. Co., 376 F.2d 738 (8 Cir. 1967) [obvious: changing square plate to round one with more efficient results]; Superior Concrete Accessories, Inc. v. Richmond Screw Anchor Co., Inc., 369 F.2d 353 (8 Cir. 1966) [obvious: changing angle of bolt from 90° to 45° "in order to hold a form for a skirt or addition to the outer edge of the structure."] Malco fails to point out any prior difficulties or deterrents known with electrical connectors involving the combination of the "square peg in a round hole.