## Facts

- Ryko Manufacturing Co. owned Reissue Patent Re. 32,601 covering an automatic car-wash system activated by an electronic numerical keypad.
- Conventional car washes commonly used mechanical insertion devices (e.g., coin/token mechanisms) that could require maintenance and jam.
- Nu-Star, Inc. sold an automatic car-wash system that used an electronic keypad activation device.
- Ryko asserted infringement of claim 7, which combined an automatic car-wash system with keypad-based activation.
- Nu-Star argued the claim was invalid as obvious because prior art showed automatic car-wash systems and numerical keypad activation devices used for access/activation in other settings.

## Issues

1. Whether claim 7 of Re. 32,601 was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of prior art disclosing car-wash systems and keypad activation devices.
2. Whether summary judgment of obviousness was proper given the factual predicates required by the Graham framework, including secondary considerations.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment invalidating claim 7 as obvious.
- The court agreed the prior art clearly suggested substituting a known electronic keypad activation device for known mechanical insertion activation to perform the same function (initiating a wash cycle).
- The court held the obviousness inquiry is objective: it turns on what would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time, not what the inventor personally found obvious.
- The court accepted that secondary considerations were part of the record but held they were insufficient to overcome the strong showing of obviousness from the primary Graham factors.
- The court concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact on the Graham predicates that would preclude summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Obviousness under § 103 is a legal conclusion based on factual determinations identified in Graham v. John Deere (scope/content of prior art; differences from the claims; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations).
- The obviousness determination is objective and asks what would have been obvious to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
- Combining known elements by substituting one known means for another to perform the same known function can be obvious when the prior art suggests the substitution.
- Secondary considerations (e.g., commercial success, long-felt need, failure of others) must be considered but do not control where the primary Graham factors compel obviousness.
- Summary judgment on obviousness is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the underlying Graham factual determinations.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that combining a known automatic car-wash system with a known keypad activation device was an obvious substitution suggested by the prior art, and it affirmed summary judgment invalidating claim 7 despite asserted secondary indicia of nonobviousness.


Ryko Mfg. Co. v. Nu-Star, Inc., 950 F.2d 714 (Fed. Cir. 1991)