Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
725 F.2d 1338 (1984)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Thomas A. Gardner (plaintiff) filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against TEC Systems, Inc. (TEC) (defendant), claiming that TEC infringed Gardner’s patent 3,452,447 (the ‘447 patent). TEC defended against the action on the ground that Gardner’s patent was invalid due to obviousness. The ‘447 patent related to a device used for drying ink used on high-gloss papers, generally used in periodicals. Specifically, the ‘447 patent claimed an invention for a means of positioning a moving web of high-gloss paper using an air bar. A similar patent had been issued in U.S. Patent No. 3,181,250 (the Vits patent). When he initially filed for patent protection, Gardner attempted to distinguish the ‘447 patent from the Vits patent on the basis that Vits depended on impingement or dynamic pressure, as opposed to the zone of static pressure in the air bar in the ‘447 patent. The patent examiner rejected this distinction. Later, Gardner amended the application by adding a dimensional limitation, limiting the size of the air bar. After this amendment, the patent examiner granted the application and issued the patent. After reviewing the history of the patent application, the district court dismissed the complaint and held that the ‘447 patent was invalid due to obviousness. Gardner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.