Ecolochem, Inc., Plaintiff-appellee, v. Mobile Water Technology Co., Defendant-appellant, 871 F.2d 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 871 F.2d 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1989) Feb. 24, 1989

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, and EDWARD D. RE, Chief Judge.1 

MARKEY, Chief Judge.

DECISION

Mobile Water Technology Co. (Mobile) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Henley, J.)2  enjoining Mobile from infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,556,492 ('492). We affirm.

OPINION

Mobile has not met its burden on appeal. In a well reasoned and well written opinion, the district court properly determined that the '492 patent had not been shown to be invalid. Mobile has not shown reversible error in the district court's finding that Bechtel and Martinola fail as anticipatory references because neither discloses all the elements of the invention as they are set forth in the claims at issue. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Nor has Mobile shown reversible error in the district court's obviousness analysis, which reflects a fully adequate consideration of the inquiries set out in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).

 1

The Honorable Edward D. Re, Chief Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation

 2

The Honorable J. Smith Henley, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.