(C) REORGANIZATION PLAN. Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961, 75 Stat. 840.. (D) FOREIGN CONSTITUTIONS AND STATUTES. 607 CASES ADJUDGED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT OCTOBER TERM, 1965. GRAHAM ET AL. v. JOHN DEERE CO. OF KANSAS CITY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 11. Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966.* In No. 11 petitioners sued for infringement of a patent, consisting of a combination of old mechanical elements, for a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow. In 1955 the Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Here the Eighth Circuit held that since there was no new result in the combination the patent was invalid. Petitioners in Nos. 37 and 43 filed actions for declaratory judgments declaring invalid respondent's patent relating to a plastic finger sprayer with a "holddown" cap used as a built-in dispenser for containers with liquids, principally insecticides. By cross-action respondent claimed infringement. The District Court and the Court of Appeals sustained the patent. Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in § 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid. Pp. 3-37. *Together with No. 37, Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Cook Chemical Co., also on certiorari to the same court. 1 (a) In carrying out the constitutional command of Art. I, §8, that a patent system "promote the Progress of . . . useful Arts," Congress established the two statutory requirements of novelty and utility in the Patent Act of 1793. Pp. 3, 6, 12. (b) This Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 11 How. 248 (1851), additionally conditioned the issuance of a patent upon the evidence of more ingenuity and skill than that possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business. P. 11. (c) In § 103 of the 1952 Patent Act Congress added the statutory nonobvious subject matter requirement, originally expounded in Hotchkiss, which merely codified judicial precedents requiring a comparison of the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, tying patentable inventions to advances in the art. Although § 103 places emphasis upon inquiries into obviousness, rather than into "invention," the general level of innovation necessary to sustain patentability remains unchanged under the 1952 Act. Pp. 14-17. (d) This section permits a more practical test of patentability. The determination of "nonobviousness" is made after establishing the scope and content of prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. P. 17. (e) With respect to each patent involved here the differences between the claims in issue and the pertinent prior art would have been obvious to a person reasonably skilled in that art. Pp. 25-26, 37. 333 F. 2d 529, affirmed; 336 F. 2d 110, reversed and remanded. Orville O. Gold argued the cause for petitioners in No. 11. With him on the brief was Claude A. Fishburn. Dennis G. Lyons argued the cause for petitioners in Nos. 37 and 43. With him on the briefs for petitioner in 1 No. 37 were Victor H. Kramer and Francis G. Cole. On the brief for petitioner in No. 43 were George H. Mortimer and Howard A. Crawford. S. Tom Morris argued the cause for respondents in No. 11. With him on the brief were W. W. Gibson and Thomas E. Scofield. Gordon D. Schmidt argued the cause for respondent in Nos. 37 and 43. With him on |