Learning about the invention process from Kleen-tex v. Mountville

The ND Ga case of Kleen-Tex v. Mountville teaches one many things about the impact of patent law in business. Although the legal issue was one of obviousness, there is a whole lot more to be learned about patent law, and the process of invention, from the written decision.

The district court noted:

The hallmark of the Supreme Court’s opinion in KSR is predictability. (...)

The [KSR] Court also discussed cases involving a patent that claims a
structure already known in the prior art but which modifies the prior
structure by substituting an element. In these cases, “the combination must
do more than yield a predictable result.”

Issues of obviousness:

First, it [defendant] argues the claims are rendered obvious by a
combination of either the Alazet patent [2,645,004] or the Bristol mat with the knowledge
of one with ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, it argues that the claims
are obvious in light of the combination of the Alazet patent with the Breens
patent [4,045,605].(...)

The Alazet patent and the Bristol Mat disclose all the elements of the
challenged claims except for the rubber backing. The Heine and Breens
patents disclose all elements of the challenged claims except for the twisting
of the coarse and fine fibers. Taken together, these prior art references
disclose all elements of the claimed invention.

(...)

Strong and credible evidence of nonobviousness was established at trial.
For example, there was a long felt but unsolved need for the invention
embodied in the ‘622 patent – i.e., a washable wipe-and-scrape mat. As early
as the 1970s, people in the track control mat industry recognized a need for a
washable wipe-and-scrape mat and sought to make one.

(...)
The widespread failures of others to achieve a washable wipe-and-
scrape mat also demonstrates the nonobviousness of Kleen-Tex’s invention.

(...)

The record also demonstrates that the results obtained from twisting
the coarse and fine fibers were unexpected or surprising.

(...)

Finally, Kleen-Tex’s washable wipe-and-scrape SuperMat enjoyed
substantial commercial success

(...)

In determining whether the challenged claims are obvious, it is often
helpful to begin with the problem solved by the challenged patent.

(...)
Of experts-->

Mr. Hart’s testimony on
this and other matters, however, lacks credibility. As noted above, he filed a
sworn declaration in support of Mountville’s claim construction positions in
which he opined to the meaning of certain claim terms, only to later admit he
had never heard those terms used in his industry.