# Petition — Continental Plastics of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Plastic Container Corp.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1257%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1980
- **Citation:** 444 U.S. 1018

## Text

a f
JLY—49 (979 i

OcTOBER TERM, 1979 | ~

A-53

(APPENDIX)
The issue of obviousness must be resolved on the basis
of factual inquiries, Hinde v. Hot Sulphur Springs, Colo-
rado, 482 F.2d 829 (10th Cir. 1973); Carson v. Bland, supra,
as of the time when solutions to problems are being sought,
King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Refrigerated Dispensers, Inc.,
354 F.2d 533 (10th Cir. 1965). Applying the prior art of
Velt and Mostoller, and the differences between the prior
art and Claim 5, considered together with the ordinary skill
in the pertinent art, we hold that the Trial Court did not

err in finding ’681 invalid as obvious.

III.

We have carefully considered the remaining allega-
tions of error advanced by Plastic. They are without merit.

Each party shall bear its own costs in this appeal.
AFFIRMED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385006_1257%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.