claimed by the patent at issue.”'72 Another factor weighing in favor of an
obviousness finding is “simultaneous invention” by another party. In Geo.
M. Martin Co. v. Alliance Machine Systems International I.LC.,m the
court — to support a finding of obviousness— relied on a third-party’s devel-
opment of the claimed invention “only a year later than the earliest possible
reduction-to-practice date of the claimed invention.” According to the court,
“lilndependently made, simultaneous inventions, made ‘within a compara-
tively short space of time,’ are persuasive evidence that the claimed apparatus
‘was the product only of ordinary mechanical or engineering skill.’ ”'7“
Occasionally, instead of suggesting a course of action leading to a claimed
invention, the prior art will teach away from it. That is, upon reading a
reference, a person of ordinary skill would be discouraged from following
the path set out in the claimed invention.” Such a reference indicates non-
obviousness and is a significant factor for a court to consider in making its
nonobviousness determination.'7"

Free Online OCR newocr.com