Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Titanium Metals Corp. Of America

I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the District Court erred in concluding that the patent was invalid as “obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art” under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Accepting as sustained by the evidence in the record all of the findings of fact which are preeursive to consideration of this crucial issue of obviousness, it is my opinion that a conclusion of nonobviousness of the invention is compelled by the following findings:1

1. The published prior art contained no suggestion of direct consumable arc remelting of ingots of metal.…