Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

In re Klein

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
647 F.3d 1343 (2011)


Facts

Arnold Klein (plaintiff) applied for a patent disclosing a device used for preparing nectar for bird and butterfly feeders. The specification described a container with an adjustable divider creating two compartments of differing volumes for sugar and water depending upon the type of nectar being made. Once the container was filled and the divider removed, the sugar and water mixed to create the nectar. The patent examiner rejected Klein’s application, finding it invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) in light of prior art patents held by Roberts, O’Connor, Kirkman, Greenspan, and De Santo. The Roberts, O’Connor, and Kirkman patents taught drawer organization designs, with movable dividers that separated drawers into compartments of varying sizes to organize different-sized items. The Greenspan patent disclosed a bottle comprised of two compartments, one for plasma and one for water, separated by a plugged, nonadjustable wall. Removing the plug allowed the plasma and water to mix. Similarly, the De Santo patent disclosed a fluid container with two compartments separated by a fixed wall, which could be removed to allow the ingredients to mix. Klein appealed, contending that the references were not analogous art for purposes of an obviousness inquiry. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) affirmed, finding the references each disclosed a container with a divider that could be used to separate ingredients into varying ratios. The Board concluded that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to combine the prior art references with already known sugar to water ratios to create different nectars. Klein appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Schall, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.