S. W. Farber, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Incorporated

Third Circuit

S. W. Farber, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Incorporated

344 F.2d 957, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5842

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedApril 20, 1965

Docket15013

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 344 F.2d 957 (S. W. Farber, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

S. W. Farber, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Incorporated, 344 F.2d 957, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5842 (3d Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This patent infringement suit, tried to a district judge sitting without a jury, resulted in a judgment on the merits for the defendant. The court found that the claimed invention consisted of mechanical improvements and adaptations *958 of the prior art which would have been obvious at the time in question to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, applying the test stated in section 103 of Title 35, U.S.C., the court held that the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art were not patentable.

The finding of obviousness is supported by affirmative testimony and cannot be characterized as unreasonable or unwarranted in the light of a record which discloses fully and with particularity the simple mechanical adaptations of familiar structures, directly indicated by the problem to be solved, which are the essence of the claimed invention.

The judgment will be affirmed on the proper findings and the logical and convincing analysis of the district court. 1964, 230 F.Supp. 883.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This patent infringement suit, tried to a district judge sitting without a jury, resulted in a judgment on the merits for the defendant. The court found that the claimed invention consisted of mechanical improvements and adaptations *958 of the prior art which would have been obvious at the time in question to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, applying the test stated in section 103 of Title 35, U.S.C., the court held that the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art were not patentable.

The finding of obviousness is supported by affirmative testimony and cannot be characterized as unreasonable or unwarranted in the light of a record which discloses fully and with particularity the simple mechanical adaptations of familiar structures, directly indicated by the problem to be solved, which are the essence of the claimed invention.

The judgment will be affirmed on the proper findings and the logical and convincing analysis of the district court. 1964, 230 F.Supp. 883.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

344 F.2d 957, 145 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 304, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 5842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/s-w-farber-inc-v-texas-instruments-incorporated-ca3-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack