A New Patent Act—But the Same Basic Problem, 35 J. Pat. Off. Soc’y 501, 510 (1953) (explaining that the “condition of inventiveness has been expressed in a variety of ways by the courts,” but the “new provision on inventiveness” in Section 103 was intended to replace and codify prior law). And indeed the courts, including this court, implemented the new statute carefully and religiously. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 14, 86 S.Ct. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966) (“Section 103, for the first time in our statute, provides a condition which exists in the law and has existed for more than 100 years, but only by reason of decisions of the courts.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548 (Fed.Cir.1988) (Markey, C.J.) (<HOLDING>); Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338,
holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine recognizing the district court improperly relied upon one step of a multistep process to determine nonobviousness holding that because parties elected to bring the case to the appellate court in the first instance the appeal could not then be dismissed just to confer jurisdiction upon the district court to determine the issues holding that contractor could not show that it reasonably relied upon alleged misrepresentation holding that motions to dismiss should have been converted into motions for summary judgment where the district court relied upon contract documents submitted by the defendant