What other cases support the Art Recognized Suitability doctrine?

Several cases support and further develop the Art Recognized Suitability doctrine. The MPEP 2144.07 cites two additional cases:

1. In re Leshin: “In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)” This case reinforces that selecting a known material for a known purpose can be considered obvious.
2. Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp.: “Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment.)” This case extends the doctrine to the selection of known components or mechanisms for their known functions.

These cases, along with Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., form a body of case law that patent examiners and courts rely on when considering obviousness based on Art Recognized Suitability.

To learn more:

• Art Recognized Suitability
• Patent Case Law
• In re Leshin
• Ryco Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp.
• Obviousness Determinations