Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Garlock, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided November 14, 1983No. 83-613, 83-614Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDavis, Circuit Judge
I concur in the result on (1) the validity of the ’390 patent under §§ 102-103; (2) the validity of the ’390 patent under § 112; (3) the invalidity of claims 1 and 17 of the ’566 patent; (4) lack of fraud on the Patent and Trademark Office; and (5) denial of attorney’s fees. I disagree and dissent as to the validity of claims 3 and 19 of the ’566 patent.
1. The process invention embodied in claim 1 of the ’566 patent was known, through use of the 401 machine in the Gore shop, well before the “invention date” (claimed by Robert Gore, the inventor) of October 1969.1 As such, the claimed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- John P. O'Brien v. Westinghouse Electric CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
- In re FoutCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1982
- Connecticut Valley Enterprises, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965
- Application of John B. Dwyer, Joseph W. Jewell, William B. Johnson, Henry G. McGrath and Louis C. RubinCourt of Customs and Patent Appeals · 1963
- Connecticut Valley Enterprises, Incorporated v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1965