United States Federal Circuit

Defendant's patented underpinning system was properly found to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. section 103; district court committed no clear error in finding a motivation to combine the prior art teachings.

Appellate Information

• Decided 01/29/2004
• Published 01/29/2004

Judges

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

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Matthew A. Rosenberg, Blumenfeld, Kaplan & Sandweiss, P.C., of St. Louis, MO, argued for plaintiffs-appellees., John H. Quinn III, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, of St. Louis, MO, argued for defendant-appellant.   With him on the brief was Andrew B. Mayfield.