Reply Brief in Support of KSR's Motion for Summary ... - Fried Frank

arguents which could be advanced by parties interested in proving patent invalidity. IILear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 670 (1969). Such legal conclusions are not bindingon this Court, and indeed are not even subject to "deference" on direct appeal fromdetermnations ofthe Patent Office in inter pares proceedings. See In re Baker Hughes,Inc., 215 F.3d 1297, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Whateverunariculated legal reason(s) mayhave lain behind the Examiner's allowance of'565 Patent claim 4 followig his receipt ofan arguent that Teleflex now attempts to disavow, those unown and unkowablereason(s) have no bearng on KSR's motion. Cf. Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int'lCo., 150 F.3d 1354, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert.denied, 525 U.S. 1106 (1999) (patentheld invalid over reference that had been disclosed to Patent Office).Teleflex's opposition also ignores a legion ofSupreme Cour decisions holdingthat "(t)he mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements, which, in theaggregation, perform or produce no new or different fuction or operation than thattheretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention. II Great At!. &Pac. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152 (1950).12 Here it is 'undisputed that asserted claim 4 ofthe '565 Patent, as wrtten, merely "unte(s) old12 Accord Sakaida v. Ag Pro. Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 281-82 (1976); Anderson's-BlackRock. Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 60 (1969); Toledo Pressed Steel Co. v.Standard Pars, Inc., 307 U.S. 350, 355-56 (1939); Lincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewar-Warer Corp., 303 U.S. 545,549 (1938); Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 486 (1935); Pickering v. McCullou~, 104 U.S. 310,318(1881); Reckendorferv. Faber, 92 U.S. 347,356-57 (1875); Hailes v. Van Wormer, 87U.S. (20 WalL.) 353,368 (1873). Teleflex's assertion that "COurS traditionallyhave beenskeptical of' invalidity challenges based on obviousness (pltf. Opp. Mem. at 7) isunsupported and insupportable. The Supreme Court has "observed a notorious differencebetween the standards applied by the Patent Offce and by the courts." Graham v. JohnDeere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 18 (1966) (holding two patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103).18