Katherine A. Silvey and Elmer R. Silvey v. Nielsen Corporation, an Oregon Corporation, and Leo Nielsen, Katherine A. Silvey and Elmer R. Silvey v. Ed Elmer and Thomas J. Patterson, Katherine A. Silvey and Elmer R. Silvey v. Floyd A. Arneson

437 F.2d 1159 168 U.S.P.Q. 679 Katherine A. SILVEY and Elmer R. Silvey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NIELSEN CORPORATION, an Oregon corporation, and Leo Nielsen, Defendants-Appellees. Katherine A. SILVEY and Elmer R. Silvey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ed ELMER and Thomas J. Patterson, Defendants-Appellees. Katherine A. SILVEY and Elmer R. Silvey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Floyd A. ARNESON, Defendant-Appellee. No. 26119. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Feb. 9, 1971. Lamar Tooze (argued), of Tooze, Powers, Kerr, Tooze & Peterson, Eugene M. Eckelman, Buckhorn, Blore, Klarquist & Sparkman, Portland, Or., for plaintiffs-appellants. J. Pierre Kolisch (argued), of Kolisch & Hartwell, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellees. Before KOELSCH, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges. JAMES M. CARTER, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellants filed three separate complaints against appellees for alleged infringement of its Silvey Patent No. 3,349,645. The actions were consolidated for the purpose of trying the threshold issue of the validity of the Silvey patent. The district court held that the Silvey patent was invalid for 'obviousness' (35 U.S.C. 103) and, in the alternative, was also…