United States Federal Circuit

The fact that a patent teaches two steps produces optimal results does not negate the additional teaching that one step alone may have beneficial results, and where that teaching is clear to one skilled in the art, a patent for the one step is invalid for being obvious.

Appellate Information

• Decided 09/19/2001
• Published 09/19/2001

Judges

• BRYSON, Circuit Judge., Before NEWMAN, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Donald R. Dunner,Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC, argued for appellant.   With him on the brief were Thomas H. Jenkins;  and Kulpreet S. Rana, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Palo Alto, California.   Of counsel on the brief was Alvin D. Shulman, Marshall, O'Toole, Gersten, Murray & Borun, of Chicago, Illinois.   Of counsel was Arie Moshe Michelsohn, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of Washington, DC., Constantine L. Trela, Jr., Sidley & Austin, of Chicago, Illinois, argued for intervenor, USX Corporation.   With him on the brief were Hugh A. Abrams, and Lisa A. Schneider., David C. Hanson, Webb Ziesenheim Logsdon Orkin & Hanson, P.C., of Pittsburgh, PA, for amicus curiae LTV Steel Company, Inc.


• For Appellees:
  
• Raymond T. Chen, Associate Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee.   With him on the brief were Albin F. Drost, Acting Solicitor;  John M. Whealan, Acting Deputy Solicitor;  and William LaMarca, Associate Solicitor.   Of counsel was Nancy C. Slutter, Attorney.