Ryko Manufacturing Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc.
21 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1053, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 28349, 950 F.2d 714 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A patent claim for a combination of known elements is invalid for obviousness if the prior art would have suggested the desirability of the combination to a person of ordinary skill in the art, even if secondary considerations such as commercial success are present.
Facts:
- Historically, automatic car washes were activated by mechanical devices requiring the insertion of a coin, token, or card.
- These mechanical activation devices were prone to maintenance issues, such as jamming and mechanical failures.
- An inventor named Klein developed a device combining an automatic car wash system with an electronic numerical keypad for activation.
- This invention was assigned to Ryko Manufacturing Co. and became reissue patent '601.
- At the time of the invention, electronic keypads were already commonly used to activate other systems, such as garage doors, and to limit access to various products.
- Nu-Star, Inc. also manufactured and sold an automatic car wash system that used an electronic keypad for activation.
Procedural Posture:
- Ryko Manufacturing Co. sued Nu-Star, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging infringement of its reissue patent.
- Nu-Star filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Ryko's patent was invalid because the invention was obvious.
- The district court granted Nu-Star's motion for summary judgment, finding the patent invalid.
- Ryko, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 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 for a car wash system activated by an electronic keypad invalid for obviousness when the prior art included both mechanically activated car washes and electronic keypads used to activate other powered systems like garage doors?
Opinions:
Majority - Edward S. Smith
Yes, the patent is invalid for obviousness. The court affirmed that the patent was invalid because the combination of an electronic keypad with a car wash system would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The court applied the Graham v. John Deere test and found that the prior art clearly taught the use of keypads to activate powered systems (like garage doors) and the use of other devices to activate car washes. The principal difference was merely substituting one known activation device (a coin slot) for another (a keypad) in a known system (a car wash), a combination the court found was clearly suggested by the prior art. Although the court acknowledged secondary considerations in favor of nonobviousness, such as commercial success and solving a long-felt need, it determined these factors were not weighty enough to overcome the strong evidence of obviousness from the primary considerations.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that secondary considerations, while relevant, do not automatically overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness based on the primary Graham factors. The decision clarifies that a court must weigh all factors but can ultimately find that the teachings of the prior art are dispositive. Furthermore, the court dispels the notion that 'combination patents' are a special category requiring different analysis, stating that virtually all patents are combinations of elements and must be evaluated under the same obviousness standard established in Section 103 and Graham.
