United States Federal Circuit

In a suit for infringement of a patent, relating to an improvement over the traditional bundle breaker (a machine used to separate stacked sheets of corrugated board), district court's ruling as a matter of law that the '566 patent would have been obvious at the time of invention is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that the difference between the prior art and the claimed improvement were minimal; 2) district court correctly concluded that evidence of secondary considerations in this case do not create a reasonable dispute as to obviousness; and 3) because the asserted claims of the '566 patent are invalid, remaining issues are moot.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/20/2010
• Published 08/20/2010

Judges

• RADER

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Kenneth E. Keller, J. Thomas Vitt