Did the district court err in finding the patent in suit, for a device used to dry ink on high-gloss paper, invalid as obvious under section 103?
Because (1) the trial court opinion makes it clear that the only claims tried by the parties and considered by the trial court were 1, 3, 4, and 8; (2) the trial court did not clearly err in its conviction that the evidence adduced at trial showed clearly and convincingly that certain limitations of claim 1 made no significant difference in the operation of the claimed invention; and (3) the patentee on appeal did not argue the validity of dependent claims 3, 4, and 8 apart from the validity of independent claim 1, this court vacates in part and affirms in part.
