Ritchie v. Vast Resources, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

decided on 2009-04-24 00:00:00

panel: Michel, Bryson, Posner,

Overview

In Ritchie v. Vast Resources (08-1528), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's infringement judgment on grounds that the asserted claims are obvious. Sitting by designation and writing for a unanimous panel, District Judge Richard Posner reasoned that the claims were obvious as reflecting a substitution of one standard grade of material for another. The opinion goes beyond KSR v. Teleflex on this point, citing several pre-KSR cases, including "the venerable Hotchkiss v. Greenwood." In addition to its humorous jabs at the technical subject matter - sex aids, or the "more perspicious term...'sexual devices'," Judge Posner's opinion includes instructive and insightful dicta on several subjects, including claim construction, indefiniteness, and secondary considerations of non-obviouosness.

Keywords

claim construction - In dicta, the court noted the confusing use of the term "lubricious" to mean "slipper," which is the secondary meaning of the term.

claim construction - In dicta, the court noted the vague nature of the use of the term "appreciable amount" in the context of "oxide of boron" in a claim to a glass-based apparatus.

obviousness - Claims that merely reflect efforts at routine experimentation in substituting standard grades of material - here, borosilicate glass for soda lime glass - are invalid as defining obvious subject matter.

obviousness - The court cited several pre-KSR "substitution" cases as support for its holding obvious claims that merely reflect a substitution of standard grades of material.

obviousness - Despite holding obvious claims that reflected a substitution of standard grades of material, the court explicitly acknowledged that changes in the chemical makeup of a composition, here glass, "might not be obvious in any sense." Here, the claim's vague reference to an "appreciable amount" of a particular component seemed to preclude the possibility that the claim fell into this category.

secondary considerations - Judge Richard Posner, sitting by designation and writing in dicta, explained the concept of "commercial value" as an indicator of non-obvioousness: "an invention that has commercial value is likely to come on the market very shortly after the idea constituting the invention...became obvious; if the invention did not appear so soon despite its value in the market, this is some evidence that it wasn't obvious after all."

Detailed review

No detailed review written.