John Deere Company of Kansas City, et al. v. William T. Graham, et al.
333 F.2d 529 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a patent combining old mechanical elements to be valid, the combination must produce a new or different function, not merely a more efficient or improved result. An aggregation of old elements that would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art is an exercise of mechanical skill, not a patentable invention.
Facts:
- William T. Graham's company manufactured chisel plows using a rigid clamp to attach the plow shank to the beam.
- These rigid clamps were unsatisfactory in rocky soil as they were prone to breaking from shocks.
- In 1950, Graham obtained a patent (No. 811) for a spring clamp he designed to absorb these shocks, which his company then manufactured and sold.
- Graham later designed an improved spring clamp, for which he received Patent No. 2,627,798 ('798) in 1953, the patent at issue in this case.
- The key innovation claimed for the '798 patent was arranging the plow shank to pass underneath a pivot plate, allowing the shank to flex downward and away from the plate when striking an obstruction.
- This arrangement differed from prior art where the shank was typically above the plate, causing it to bend against the plate under stress.
- All individual mechanical elements used in the '798 patent were already known and present in prior art, such as the Glencoe clamp.
- Neither Graham nor his company ever manufactured or sold a plow clamp embodying the '798 patent design.
Procedural Posture:
- William T. Graham and Graham Plow, Inc. (plaintiffs) sued John Deere Company of Kansas City and Deere & Company (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri for patent infringement.
- The trial court found Graham's Patent No. 2,627,798 valid and that the defendants had infringed upon Claims 1 and 2.
- Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a patent that combines old mechanical elements into a more efficient arrangement valid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the combination produces no new or different function and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art?
Opinions:
Majority - Matthes, J.
No. A patent for a combination of old elements is invalid if it merely produces a more efficient result without creating a new or different function, as such an arrangement is considered an obvious application of mechanical skill rather than a patentable invention. The court applied a more exacting standard for patentability to combination patents, consistent with Supreme Court precedents like Cuno Engineering Corp. and Great A. & P. Tea Co. To be patentable, a combination of old elements must achieve a synergistic result that is new or different, not just an improvement in efficiency. The court determined that the '798 patent's inversion of parts, which allowed the shank to flex downward, did not produce a new or significantly different result. Instead, this arrangement was an obvious modification to a person with ordinary skill in the art of agricultural implements. The court further noted that the supposed key innovation—the downward flex—was not mentioned in the patent's claims, which actually described the shank as being in 'constant continuous contact' with the plate, undermining the argument that this new function was central to the invention.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict standard for the patentability of combination patents, particularly within the Eighth Circuit, predating the Supreme Court's landmark ruling on the same case. It emphasizes that novelty and utility alone are insufficient; an invention must also be nonobvious. The ruling clarifies that merely rearranging known elements for a more efficient outcome does not meet the inventive threshold and is instead an unpatentable application of mechanical skill. This case underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing combination patents to prevent the monopolization of obvious improvements and protect the public domain, setting the stage for the Supreme Court's ultimate articulation of the nonobviousness standard under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
