Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.
| Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 10, 1969 Decided December 8, 1969 | |
| Full case name | Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., Inc. |
| Citations | 396 U.S. 57 (more) 90 S. Ct. 305; 24 L. Ed. 2d 258; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3322; 163 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 673 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Cert. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
| Holding | |
| When old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Black, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall |
| Burger took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969), is a 1969 decision of the United States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions. It stands for the proposition that, when old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable.
The patent (U.S. Pat. No. 3,055,280) sought to solve a problem in paving asphalt roads—the joint between the new section and old, cold sections tends to bond poorly. Previously, one machine spread and shaped the new deposit of asphalt and a second machine contained a radiant-heat burner, which softened cold asphalt. The claimed invention combined on one machine chassis the spreading and shaping equipment along with a radiant-heat burner. “The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a ‘new or different function,’” Accordingly, the Court held the combination obvious.
Subsequent developments
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for many years ignored and refused to cite or follow the Black Rock decision. But the recent Supreme Court decision in KSR v. Teflex,[1] which cited and followed Black Rock for the proposition that “a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” gave the Federal Circuit “forceful instruction” [2] to change its approach. After the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the KSR case, the Federal Circuit began to defer to the Black Rock decision.[3]
References
- ^ 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
- ^ More on the impact of KSR, Lawrence Ebert, 2007-05-01
- ^ See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Before Dystar the Federal Circuit appears to have cited Black Rock only twice, in 1984 and 1985.