Trusted Partner. Extensive Capabilities. Partnering with Industry Leaders. Excellent Value. Design and Build to Print. Purpose To develop effective solutions from detail tooling to full program management to improve your manufacturing operations VISION AFC Tool will be recognized as a leading provider of high quality competitively priced custom tooling solutions.
Aerospace Aerospace tooling, components, assemblies, machining and equipment require a skilled staff and a high capacity complex manufacturing facility to supply a multitude of aerospace projects such as production runs, prototyping, programming, inspection and assemblies.
Automotive With the rapid growth of the OEM automotive market since the great recession, a significant gap has been created. Many automotive assemblers are reshoring and require renewed regional component manufacturers. Therefore Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers have relied upon AFC Tool to supply critical compression molds, custom tooling, tools and dies to help supply this burgeoning market. We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment. Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd. Pro-Mold argues that there was no suggestion to combine the prior art Squeeze Tite and Classic Line Thin card holders.
Pro-Mold also contends that the district court erred by not considering evidence of secondary considerations in its obviousness analysis. Great Lakes counters that the district court did not err in holding the claimed invention to have been obvious over the prior art card holders. Great Lakes argues that the district court considered the evidence of secondary considerations offered by Pro-Mold and that this evidence did not create genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment.
A determination of obviousness under 35 U. Uniroyal, Inc. Rudkin-Wiley Corp. Among these factual inquiries are secondary considerations, which include evidence of factors tending to show nonobviousness, such as commercial success of the invention, satisfying a long-felt need, failure of others to find a solution to the problem at hand, and copying of the invention by others. Dennison Mfg. The district court held that there were no genuine issues of material fact pertaining to the obviousness of the invention.
The district court determined that the content of the prior art included the Squeeze Tite card holder and Classic Line Thick and Thin card holders. The Squeeze Tite card holder is a two-piece card holder with a friction fit cover. It is larger than the card and thus provides a "frame" around a stored card.
The Classic Line card holders are only slightly larger than the stored card and consist of a base and slide cover. The cover fits into the base by sliding into grooves in the "long" sides of the base. The Classic Line Thick card holder was designed to hold several cards, while the Classic Line thin card holder was designed to hold one card.
The district court combined the size of the Classic Line Thin card holder with the friction fit cover of the Squeeze Tite card holder, and held this combination of features to have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the design and manufacture of card holders.
The district court, however, did not provide a basis for its discounting of Pro-Mold's evidence of secondary considerations. We agree with the district court that the Classic Line Thin and Squeeze Tite card holders together contain all the elements of the invention defined in independent claim 1 of the patent. The Squeeze Tite card holder contains all the elements of the invention except for its size.
The Classic Line Thin card holder provided this missing element, being only slightly larger than a stored card. Pro-Mold, however, argues that the district court erred in concluding that the Classic Line card holders were prior art to the patent. See 35 U. The district court considered relevant publications advertising the Classic Line Thin card holder and corroborating deposition testimony. Because the Classic Line Thin card holder was advertised in , , and , we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that there is no genuine dispute as to whether the prior art included the Classic Line Thin card holder.
We disagree. It is well-established that before a conclusion of obviousness may be made based on a combination of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion, or motivation to lead an inventor to combine those references. ACS Hosp. Montefiore Hospital, F. BNA , We start from the self-evident proposition that mankind, in particular, inventors, strive to improve that which already exists.
Section sets the dividing line between patentability and unpatentability at what would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains. If one prior art reference describes the claimed invention, it is worse than obvious in terms of patentability; it lacks novelty.
If the invention is different from what is disclosed in one reference, but the differences are such that combination with another reference would lead to what is claimed, the obviousness question then requires inquiry into whether there is reason, suggestion, or motivation to make that combination.
Such a suggestion may come expressly from the references themselves. See, e. It may come from knowledge of those skilled in the art that certain references, or disclosures in the references, are known to be of special interest or importance in the particular field. Ashland Oil, Inc. BNA , n. It may also come from the nature of a problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to references relating to possible solutions to that problem.
BNA , C. In this case, the reason to combine arose from the very nature of the subject matter involved, the size of the card intended to be enclosed. There was surely a reason to combine a reference describing an elegant card holder and cover arrangement with a reference describing a card holder no larger than necessary to enclose the card.
The suggestion or motivation to combine these features of the prior art was thus evident from the very size of the card itself. Card holders larger than the card had already been designed, as evidenced at least by the Squeeze Tite card holder. On the other hand, a card holder no larger than necessary clearly was desirable in order to enable the card holders to fit in a set box. It would also avoid having the cards bang around in a holder larger than needed.
Accordingly, the size of the card provided the motivation to combine the features of the prior art card holders and hence modify the size of the Squeeze Tite card holder so that it was not larger or smaller than the card, but rather substantially the size of the card. Pro-Mold's evidence of commercial success, however, created genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. In particular, there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether there was a nexus between the commercial success of the invention and its patented features.
It is the secondary considerations that are often most probative and determinative of the ultimate conclusion of obviousness or nonobviousness. The district court did not provide reasons for apparently discounting Pro-Mold's evidence of secondary considerations; that was error as a matter of law. In reviewing a decision on summary judgment, we must draw inferences in favor of Pro-Mold, the nonmovant. Terminus 60 of punch 54 will contact headed end 32 as jaw 40 is moved toward the latter; however, punch 54 is merely hanging from shoulder 48 in spaced relationship with respect to surface 70 of jaw Hence, as jaw 40 is moved toward section 22, punch 54 will be shifted relatively upwardly within portion 46 permitting jaw 40 to be clamped tightly against section 22 as can be seen in FIG.
It is to be noted that, as jaw 40 is moved toward section 22, headed end 32 is engageable by chamfered surface 50 for shifting jaw 40 laterally, thereby positioning headed end 32 within recess 52 and in alignment with portion 46 of bore Further rotation of screw 66 will force punch 54 downwardly toward rivet It can be seen that terminus 60 of punch 54 is configured to coincide approximately in cross-sectional diameter with the diameter of shank 28 and, therefore, continued movement of punch 54 by screw 66 toward rivet 26 will force the latter downwardly and into hole Manifestly, the arcuate surface of screw 66, and the fiat face of punch 54, permit the screw to be freely rotatable with respect to punch 54 while the latter is being shifted toward rivet 26 by screw Thus, even though terminus 60 of punch 54 is tightly engaged with rivet 26 while forcing the same from the sickle, screw 66 may be rotated without causing development of torsional stress within punch Further, portion 46 provides a guide for punch 54 as the latter is forced toward rivet 26 to prevent lateral movement of punch Moreover, jaw 40 not only guides punch 54 as the latter is forced toward rivet 26, but also clamps tightly against section 22 to prevent twisting of tool 10 as screw 66 is forced downwardly against punch 54 by rotation of head Hence, the tendency of punch 54 to twist and bend is minimized and, therefore, fracturing of the same is substantially precluded.
Having thus described the invention, what is claimed as new and desired to be secured by Letters Patent is:. A 'hand tool for removing a malleable rivet connecting the knife section and mounting strip of a sickle while the sickle is in the cutter bar of a mowing machine, the rivet having opposed headed ends and a shank passing through the section and strip, said tool comprising:.
A hand tool as set forth in claim 1, wherein said jaw 'has an annular chamfered surface, coaxial with said support portion, remote from said threaded portion, presenting a recess for receiving said one headed end of said rivet to maintain the latter and said support portion in alignment.
Photo Index. Support Vintage Machinery. Submitting Content. Contact Us. Discussion FAQ. The Shop. Projects Forum. For Sale Forum. Manufacturer's Index. Machine Registry. Publication Reprints. Photo Index Home.
0コメント