https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Snooki 2026-05-11T14:11:38Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.44.2 https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Quanta_Brief_-_Snooki&diff=5049 2011-04-29T18:38:36Z

<p>Snooki: Created page with &quot;==Brief of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association In Support of the Respondents== *THE PATENTEE&#039;S ABILITY TO GRANT LIMITED LICENSES IS A RIGHT INHERENT IN THE PAT...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Brief of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Owners Association In Support of the Respondents==<br /> *THE PATENTEE'S ABILITY TO GRANT LIMITED LICENSES IS A RIGHT INHERENT IN THE PATENT GRANT<br /> **a patent holder may choose instead to sell patented articles or license its technology without restriction, thus exhausting its patent rights with respect to the sold or licensed article<br /> **The patentee may surrender his monopoly in whole by the sale of his patent or in part by the sale of an article embodying the invention. His monopoly remains so long as he retains the ownership of the patented article. But sale of it exhausts the monopoly in that article and the patentee may not thereafter, by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition of the article. <br /> *CONDITIONAL LICENSING IS A COMMON PRACTICE IN MANY INDUSTRIES <br /> **Court should not lightly disrupt the well-established principle that limited license grants and conditional sales do not exhaust a patentee's ability to control the use of its intellectual property. Relying on this Court's well-settled precedent, there is a broad practice among owners of intellectual property of relying on the ability to condition sales of patented goods.<br /> **The use of conditional licensing is so widespread that almost every industry routinely employs it and, as a result, its impact is felt throughout the population<br /> **Patent owners, just like copyright holders, require the ability to condition licenses in order to make their property available for many different applications on a sensible economic basis, with those who derive the greatest benefit from the patented invention paying the most and those deriving the least benefit paying least.<br /> *PUBLIC POLICY FAVORS ENFORCING CONDITIONAL SALES OR LICENSES <br /> **Public policy supports enforcing conditioned sales or limited licenses of patented goods. An owner of a property right generally can condition the use of that right by another; thus, a patent owner should be able to fashion a license that grants less than the full patent right. It should be no different when a patentee elects to manufacture the patented item itself rather than grant another the license to do so.<br /> **Shifting the burden from license agreements to the patenting process would create a number of undesirable consequences. Inventors would be forced to file many patent applications to cover each intended use or embodiment of an invention. Applicants would thus be forced to anticipate all possible options regarding the use and marketing of the product and file separate applications for each. This would increase the number of applications filed with the already overburdened U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.<br /> **Logic and sound public policy require notice but only by the patentee to the first purchaser or first licensee. Thus, when a patentee grants a limited patent right and wishes to enforce its reserved patent rights against infringers who act outside of the license grant, clear notice to the first purchaser or first licensee is necessary.<br /> *CONDITIONAL LICENSES ARE SUBJECT TO PATENT EXHAUSTION WHEN PAIRED WITH AN ABUSE OF PATENT RIGHTS <br /> **Although conditional licenses have been used in the industry and accepted by this Court for many years, it is equally important for this Court to reinforce its decisions holding that conditional licenses cannot protect abusive or illegal practices<br /> **In cases involving conditional licenses that extend a patentee's monopoly too far, patent exhaustion acts as an appropriate limit.<br /> **there is no conflict between the line of cases reaffirming a patentee's right to grant conditional licenses and the line of cases applying patent exhaustion.<br /> **Patent Exhaustion Applies In Cases of Antitrust Violations<br /> **Patent Exhaustion Applies When a Patentee Attempts To Limit the Use of an Article to a Geographic Region</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Here_in_list_of_arguments_in_Quanta&diff=5046 2011-04-29T18:30:04Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Post a link to your summary of the brief you read here.<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Summary 901330223]]<br /> <br /> [[901349446 Quanta Brief]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Summary 901471466]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Summary 901422128]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Summary Jacob Marmolejo]]<br /> <br /> [[Homework 8 (due Friday 28)~jnosal | Quanta Brief Summary 901438174]]<br /> <br /> [[Mitros: Quanta Brief]]<br /> <br /> [[Zahm Homework 31: Quanta Brief]]<br /> <br /> [[901419437 Quanta v. LGE Brief Summary]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief 901437068]]<br /> <br /> [[901281608: Quanta Brief]]<br /> <br /> [[901444263: Quanta v. LGE Reply Brief of Petitioners]]<br /> <br /> [[901479977: Quanta for Petitioners]]<br /> <br /> [[Apr. 29th: Brief Summary (2007 WL 3440937) - Andrew McBride]]<br /> <br /> [[Reply Brief of Petitioners (Quanta) - Adam Mahood]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Summary 901360293]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Summary 901431048]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief Brobins]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief hwong1]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief: Tennant]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief - Snooki]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief (John Gallagher)]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta brief - 901338276]]<br /> <br /> [[Brief of Amici Curiae for Respondent - Eric Leis]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief - Kschlax]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief - Christine Roetzel]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief: In support of Federal Circuit Ruling (eguilbea)]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief: 901424607]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief - 901425018]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief- Xiao Dong]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief - Ackroyd]]<br /> <br /> [[Quanta Brief - Karch]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_4/4/11&diff=4631 2011-04-04T23:33:06Z

<p>Snooki: /* Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand */</p> <hr /> <div>==Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand==<br /> *Defense of Hamilton Sundstrand<br /> Before stating the defense in this case it is important to recognize the state of the court’s opinion on the doctrine of equivalents. Through previous cases the court has established that the doctrine of equivalents can be used to show infringement if a substantially similar creation achieves a substantially similar result using a substantially similar means. Additionally, the court established that in order to use the doctrine of equivalents effectively and fairly, the claims of a patent should be reviewed individually when compared with another creation. It is also important to note that Honeywell is responsible for the full disclosure of their invention in such a way that one with ordinary skill in the art could recreate the invention. <br /> <br /> In Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand there were two major issues which needed to be defended on behalf of Hamilton Sundstrand. The question is whether or not Hamilton’s invention was infringing Honeywell’s patents for compressor bleed air control apparatus. The alleged infringement of ‘194 and ‘893 was for foreseeability. Patent ‘194 claimed a compressor which powered devices using variable air flow. Patent ‘893 claimed a system which provided a minimum flow rate as well as the electronics for that system. Hamilton Sundstrand did not infringe either patent through the foreseeability correlation.<br /> <br /> When addressing infringement due to foreseeability it should be noted that it requires any changes to be unforeseeable to one of ordinary skill at that time. Because of the vagueness of this requirement as well as the difficulty one has in judging the state of technology at a future date, the patentee can take liberties using this criteria. This criterion helps to protect the patentee and helps to make patents more appealing for an inventor. However, by supporting the patentee so strongly it takes away much of the freedom from the public. Additionally, the foreseeability requirement should not apply here because expert testimony has helped to detail that at the time of Honeywell’s invention, the items would have been obvious to a person in the art. <br /> <br /> The prior art contained the key parts which the Sundstrand invention utilized. Given the expert testimony as well as the devices presented as prior art from the 1970s it is clear that the items of the Sundstrand invention would have been foreseeable to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time Honeywell filed its patents. Honeywell could have used IGV positioning in 1982. Because of this, Honeywell should have needed to draft claims in a way to contain the elements for the level of protection they desired. <br /> <br /> Honeywell stated that the Sundstrand invention was equivalent because it uses substantially similar results to achieve a substantially similar end. However, the devices do not achieve these similar ends in a substantially similar way and thus the doctrine of equivalents should not imply infringement. The Sundstrand devices uses aspects and parameters (IGV Positioning, temperature, etc.) not present in the Honeywell device at all to achieve its goal. Additionally, Honeywell surrendered their right to monopolize the use of the IGV positioning by failing to include it in the original claims. The technology had been in use and known at the time of invention and thus could have been included. Honeywell’s claimed ignorance is irrelevant when considering the object of the case. <br /> <br /> The device was foreseeable and therefore, it was Honeywell’s responsibility to draft their claims in an adequate manner. Due to prior art as well as expert testimony it is clear an ordinary person could have foreseen the invention and thus Sundstrand should be cleared of all charges of infringement.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_4/4/11&diff=4630 2011-04-04T23:31:52Z

<p>Snooki: /* Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand */</p> <hr /> <div>==Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand==<br /> *Defense of Hamilton Sundstrand<br /> Before stating the defense in this case it is important to recognize the state of the court’s opinion on the doctrine of equivalents. Through previous cases the court has established that the doctrine of equivalents can be used to show infringement if a substantially similar creation achieves a substantially similar result using a substantially similar means. Additionally, the court established that in order to use the doctrine of equivalents effectively and fairly, the claims of a patent should be reviewed individually when compared with another creation. It is also important to note that Honeywell is responsible for the full disclosure of their invention in such a way that one with ordinary skill in the art could recreate the invention. <br /> In Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand there were two major issues which needed to be defended on behalf of Hamilton Sundstrand. The question is whether or not Hamilton’s invention was infringing Honeywell’s patents for compressor bleed air control apparatus. The alleged infringement of ‘194 and ‘893 was for foreseeability. Patent ‘194 claimed a compressor which powered devices using variable air flow. Patent ‘893 claimed a system which provided a minimum flow rate as well as the electronics for that system. Hamilton Sundstrand did not infringe either patent through the foreseeability correlation. <br /> When addressing infringement due to foreseeability it should be noted that it requires any changes to be unforeseeable to one of ordinary skill at that time. Because of the vagueness of this requirement as well as the difficulty one has in judging the state of technology at a future date, the patentee can take liberties using this criteria. This criterion helps to protect the patentee and helps to make patents more appealing for an inventor. However, by supporting the patentee so strongly it takes away much of the freedom from the public. Additionally, the foreseeability requirement should not apply here because expert testimony has helped to detail that at the time of Honeywell’s invention, the items would have been obvious to a person in the art. <br /> The prior art contained the key parts which the Sundstrand invention utilized. Given the expert testimony as well as the devices presented as prior art from the 1970s it is clear that the items of the Sundstrand invention would have been foreseeable to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time Honeywell filed its patents. Honeywell could have used IGV positioning in 1982. Because of this, Honeywell should have needed to draft claims in a way to contain the elements for the level of protection they desired. <br /> Honeywell stated that the Sundstrand invention was equivalent because it uses substantially similar results to achieve a substantially similar end. However, the devices do not achieve these similar ends in a substantially similar way and thus the doctrine of equivalents should not imply infringement. The Sundstrand devices uses aspects and parameters (IGV Positioning, temperature, etc.) not present in the Honeywell device at all to achieve its goal. Additionally, Honeywell surrendered their right to monopolize the use of the IGV positioning by failing to include it in the original claims. The technology had been in use and known at the time of invention and thus could have been included. Honeywell’s claimed ignorance is irrelevant when considering the object of the case. The device was foreseeable and therefore, it was Honeywell’s responsibility to draft their claims in an adequate manner. Due to prior art as well as expert testimony it is clear an ordinary person could have foreseen the invention and thus Sundstrand should be cleared of all charges of infringement.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_4/4/11&diff=4588 2011-04-04T14:05:16Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Honeywell v. Hamilton Sundstrand==<br /> *Defense of Hamilton Sundstrand<br /> ...</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_4/4/11&diff=4587 2011-04-04T14:03:56Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Defense of Hamilton Sundstrand==<br /> ...</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_4/4/11&diff=4586 2011-04-04T14:03:22Z

<p>Snooki: Created page with &quot;*Defense of Hamilton Sundstrand ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>*Defense of Hamilton Sundstrand<br /> ...</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=4585 2011-04-04T14:02:48Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> *[[Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Nonobviousness Page]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Homework due 3/23/11]]<br /> *ADAMS RESPIRATORY THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. PERRIGO COMPANY (HW for 3/30/11)<br /> *[[Snooki's Homework due 4/4/11]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Doctrine_of_Equivalents_Case_List&diff=4579 2011-04-04T13:26:35Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Add your case to the list with a one-paragraph (approximately 250 words) summary of the facts at issues, i.e., &quot;an umbrella is or is not equivalent to a parasol because...&quot;<br /> <br /> Please put the cases in chronological order. If two are from the same year, then put them in alphabetical order. Also put your name, your login name or NDID number with your case. Use the following for a template.<br /> <br /> * Goodwine v. Batill, 123 US 4567 (1066)<br /> This case concerned a patent for an iPad and the patentee sued the maker of an iPod for infringement. The important part of the claim was &quot;a device for playing music and other media comprising a touch screen...&quot; The court held that iPod infringed the iPad patent because the ... was equivalent to the ... because ...<br /> <br /> Patrick Lane (901431645)<br /> * Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy (1877)<br /> In this case, the patents in question were machines used to make paper bags. The machines are loaded with large rolls of paper and then stamp out the bag pattern, or &quot;blanks,&quot; which are then folded and pasted to make a paper bag. Union Paper was granted a patent in 1859 for this type of machine which used a long, straight knife which would move up and down to punch the pattern out of the paper. In 1874, Murphy was granted a patent for a similar device that used a serrated knife which cut the paper from below as the rolls moved over it. Union is suing Murphy for infringement, claiming the devices which cut the paper in each machine are substantially equivalent, and therefore are under protection by Union's 1859 patent. Murphy argued that the serrated knife is an improvement over the straight knife, and that the method of cutting was different enough to constitute patent protection. However, the expert witness explained that the paper is essentially being cut in the same way in each device: a fast moving, sharp edge is slicing through the paper. Even though one knife was serrated, the cutting occurs in the same mechanical fashion, and therefore is equivalent. The court found in favor of Union, stating that the two methods of cutting the blanks were substantially equal because they performed the same function in the same way.<br /> <br /> hwong1<br /> * Absolute Software Inc. v. Stealth Signal Inc.<br /> The patents in question deal with security apparatus’ that are used to retrieve lost or stolen electronic devices. Absolute accused Stealth of infringing on their patent, and in effect Stealth filed a counterclaim stating that Absolute infringed on another prior art. Both companies filed for summary judgment stating that neither infringed on any patent. The doctrine of equivalence was used to determine if either company infringed on other patents. Absolute proves that It does not infringe on the prior art because the transmission message to the central site is not done at a semi-random rate. Absolute did not literally infringe, but the doctrine of equivalence was needed to verify. The courts found that since Absolute’s product makes the call to the central site every 24.5 hours, it is not ‘random’ by any means but rather ‘uniformly randomly distributed’. Thus, Absolute does not infringe on its prior art. Stealth was analyzed on in infringing on Absolute by the use of an XTool agent. Doctrine of Equivalence is again applied, finding that Stealth’s invention differed in providing a step at the end of the communication that Absolute does not have. Absolute has written in their claims on their Xtool agent “without signaling the visual or audible user interface.” Therefore, when Stealth created an audible user interface, it made its invention nonequivalent to Absolutes. Thus, Stealth is found to be non-infringing with their patent. <br /> <br /> Bill Goodwine<br /> <br /> * Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)<br /> This case was discussed in class and presented by another student, but I read it as well. This case concerned a patent for a gyroscope owned by Adkins, the inventor of an improved gyroscope, and Lear, the company that sells gyroscopes. Lear and Adkins had a written agreement that allowed Lear to sell Adkin’s patented invention, where Adkins received a small percentage of the net sales price as royalties. In 1957, Lear refused to pay royalties to Adkins with the claim that they were selling gyroscopes that differed from Adkin’s invention. However, the “new” gyroscopes differed only in “size, form, and shape,” but “contain[ed] the same elements.” The essential elements were the same between Adkin’s patent and Lear’s other steel gyroscopes, but the scale and exact assembly was different. Since those did not constitute a substantial difference, the jury of the Supreme Court of California held Adkins in favor and required Lear to pay royalties to Adkins for the sales price of the other gyroscopes sold. This case is an example of clear infringement.<br /> <br /> 901431048<br /> <br /> * Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968)(67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)<br /> I am the other student^^^(see case above). Other items of note in the case, aside from the summary above, include that the court ruled that infringing the doctrine of equivalence is a matter of fact and that the jury should be the one to establish it. This brings up an interesting qualification, as it seems almost every other case considered with respect to the doctrine of equivalence was decided by judges, not juries.<br /> <br /> Brobins<br /> <br /> *AMEC Liquidating Trust v. IVAC Corporation, 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)<br /> <br /> AMEC had a patent for a thermometer with a plastic cover held on by a hooking type mechanism. IVAC created a thermometer with a cover held on by a ring that created a friction lock. The CAFC held the IVAC invention was non-infringing on the AMEC patent because under the doctrine of equivalents, it did not perform the same function in the same way. The AMEC thermometer cover used an inscription fit, which created deep scratches in the cover. The IVAC thermometer used a friction fit, which only created superficial scratches in the cover. The CAFC found that the superficial scratches did not constitute an inscription fit. Also, the CAFC decided that AMEC did not present any evidence proving that the ring in the IVAC patent was equivalent to the “hook” in the AMEC patent. Because of this, the patent was non-infringing under the doctrine of equivalents.<br /> <br /> 901444263<br /> <br /> *Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574 (1989)<br /> <br /> The inventor, Turner, invented a thermometer probe cover that stays on (this was owned by AMEC). It kept the cover on via a sharp metal hook to tear into the cover’s plastic. IVAC developed a thermometer that served a similar purpose of keeping the probe cover on, except that it did so with a ring on the probe (to hold the cover via friction). IVAC intentionally left the probe free of any sharp edge to ease the removal of the probe cover when needed. District Court of Southern California ruled in summary judgment that IVAC’s thermometer probe covers do not infringe AMEC’s. On appeal from AMEC, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. A ring that does not tear the plastic cover is not equivalent to the hook that does. [http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&amp;db=ALLCASES&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT4121840350313&amp;origin=Search&amp;sp=003654480-2000&amp;method=TNC&amp;cfid=1&amp;rp=%2fwelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&amp;eq=welcome%2fCampusLaw&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB1095239350313&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;query=TI(JOHNSTON+%26+IVAC)&amp;vr=2.0&amp;fmqv=s&amp;action=Search&amp;fn=_top&amp;service=Search&amp;sv=Split&amp;rs=WLW11.01]<br /> <br /> 901471466<br /> <br /> *Unitronics Ltd. v. Gharb, 318 Fed.Appx. 902 C.A.Fed. (Dist.Col.) (1989)<br /> <br /> This case involved a patent for programmable logic controllers with Global System for Mobile communications. The main issue was infringement based on the capabilities of the programmable logic controllers (PLCs). The court held that alleged infringers PLCs did not contain a “digital recording device having at least one emergency message” or an equivalent. The alleged infringers PLCs also did not have the “data set for transmission to the mobile telephone including alarm information.” The court also ruled that they did not have anything equivalent to either of these claims. Based on the ruling in Warner-Jenkinson the device is not infringing unless it “contains each limitation of the claim, either literally or by an equivalent.” The alleged infringing PLCs did not have a similarity to all of the limitations to the claim and were thus allowed to continue selling their device. [[http://campus.westlaw.com.proxy.library.nd.edu/result/default.wl?mt=CampusLaw&amp;db=ALLFEDS%2cALLSTATES%2cSCT&amp;rlt=CLID_QRYRLT3654057332134&amp;origin=Search&amp;sp=003654480-2000&amp;method=WIN&amp;cfid=1&amp;rp=%2fWelcome%2fCampusLaw%2fdefault.wl&amp;eq=Welcome%2fCampusLaw&amp;rltdb=CLID_DB3890056332134&amp;srch=TRUE&amp;query=unitronics+gharb&amp;vr=2.0&amp;fmqv=s&amp;action=Search&amp;fn=_top&amp;service=Search&amp;sv=Split&amp;rs=WLW11.01]]<br /> <br /> 901479977<br /> <br /> <br /> *Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey &amp; Associates (1990)<br /> <br /> Wilson is suing DGA/Dunlop for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of its patented design for a golf ball. Wilson's patent is for a golf ball modeled as an icosahedron with dimples placed in such a way as to have 6 &quot;great circles&quot; of symmetry instead of the typical 1. The patent specifies where dimples should be placed on the ball and requires that no dimples be placed on the great circles. The accused DGA balls use the same &quot;great circles&quot; design, but with dimples placed on the great circles. DGA's defense is that there is &quot;no principled difference&quot; between its design and a design of the prior art (prior to Wilson's patent). Therefore, allowing Wilson to utilize the doctrine of equivalents would extend protection of claims already in the prior art to Wilson's patent. The CAFC decided that Wilson can only utilize the doctrine of equivalents if it can make a hypothetical claim that literally covers Dunlop's design (in this case, claim a ball with dimples placed on the great circles) and is also nonobvious considering the prior art. Wilson is unable to make such a nonobvious hypothetical claim and therefore no infringement was found.<br /> <br /> 901338276<br /> <br /> * Lemelson v. General Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202 (1992) <br /> <br /> Lemelson sued Mattel, alleging that Mattel's &quot;Hot Wheels&quot; toy car track infringed on his patented toy track. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois found in favor of the plaintiff. Mattel appealed to the CAFC. The Court held that the &quot;Hot Wheels&quot; track did not contain all the limitations of the patent; it was equivalent to the prior art. That is, Lemelson's patent could not be both valid in light of the prior art and infringed upon by Mattel. Furthermore, upon his first application, claim 3 of Lemelson's patent had five clauses. The PTO examiner found the patent to be indistinguishable from the prior art. Lemelson added clauses [f] and [g] and received a patent. The important parts of the claim were, &quot;[f] said guide means include a pair of spaced apart runner portions for defining the pathway of a vehicle moving over said track, [g] said spaced apart runner portions include upwardly extending rails for guiding the wheels of a vehicle.&quot; The Court held that &quot;Hot wheels&quot; did not contain any elements equivalent to the clauses [f] and [g]. The Court also noted that the public is entitled to the PTO record to determine the scope and meaning of claims. <br /> <br /> 901330223<br /> <br /> *Valmont Industries Inc. v. Reinke Manufacturing Company Inc., 983 F.2d 1039 (1993)<br /> <br /> 901316153<br /> <br /> This case concerns an adaption for center-pivot (i.e. rotating) irrigation systems. The adaption (an apparatus that attaches to the main frame of the sprinkler) allows the corners of a field, normally missed by the standard rotating irrigation system, to be watered. The infringement issue relates to the means by which the position of the sprinkler is detected, relative to the field. The patent uses a method of pivot angle encoders, while the &quot;infringing&quot; patent uses buried electromagnetic cables to guide the sprinkler around the field.<br /> <br /> The CAFC ruled that the second device was not infringing, reversing the decision of the district court. The district court argued that the means of controlling the system were equivalent. The CAFC's argument was that while the two irrigation systems performed substantially the same overall function to obtain substantially the same overall result as the claimed invention, the way those results were achieved was substantially different. &quot;Comparison of these two control means compels the conclusion that the claimed control means and Reinke's control means are not structurally equivalent.[...][E]ven though both the control means in the specification and the control means on Reinke's device use electric signals, the structures generating those signals are strikingly different.&quot; <br /> <br /> Because the doctrine of equivalence requires that the two devices perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same results, the two control systems were not equivalent under the doctrine of equivalence because they did not meet the &quot;way&quot; requirement of the doctrine of equivalence.<br /> <br /> *William Bradshaw and Robert Shepherd v. Igloo Products Corp. 1997 WL 543109 (US District Court, N.D.Ill.)<br /> <br /> William Bradshaw sued Igloo Products for infringement of a wheeled cooler. Bradshaw’s patent was for a cooler with a pulling handle and two lifting handles, one of which was connected on the same axle as the pulling handle. The Igloo products in question were the Rolling Kool Locker which had a rotatable lifting hand that can also be used to pull the cooler and the Cool Roller which had separate lifting and pulling handles coupled to separate axles. The court decided that the prior art for the Cool Roller was a different patent, the Mason patent. This patent was for a wheeled cooler with separate lifting and pulling handles. The Mason patent was granted before Bradshaw’s patent. The court ruled that the Cool Roller fell under the Mason patent. Therefore, if Bradshaw’s patent were to be expanded to include the Cool Roller’s handles, it would be an invalid patent as a result of the prior art, the Mason patent. This leads to a method of deciding infringement. If the product in question mimics prior art, then it cannot infringe the patent otherwise that patent would be invalid. In deciding infringement for the Rolling Kool Locker, the court decided that it was up to a jury to decide whether the Kool Lockers handles were equivalent to Bradshaw’s patent, since there was no other glaring evidence. <br /> <br /> Eric Paul<br /> <br /> * Dr. Raymond G. Tronzo v. Biomet Inc. 1998 156 F.3d 1154 (United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit)<br /> In this case Biomet was accused of infringement of an artificial hip prosthesis patented by Dr. Tronzo (patent 4,743,262). The alleged infringement revolved around the shape of the artificial hip socket and the hinge that was inserted into the socket. Patent ‘262 claimed a “generally conical” shape of the hip socket. Biomet’s design contained a strictly hemispherical shape. The court heard evidence in which it was claimed that even though the shapes would have at first glance performed in the same manner, the forces generated on the surface of each implant would be different depending on the shape. Additionally, after hearing expert testimony that suggested any shape would have been equivalent to the conical limitations of the patent claims, the court said that such a ruling would have been impermissible under the all-elements rule of Warner Jenkinson because it would write the “generally conical” shape limitation out of the claims. Therefore, the court held that the accused design did not infringe upon the patent claims under the doctrine of equivalence. <br /> <br /> Peter Mitros (901461727)<br /> <br /> *Hale Propeller, L.L.C. v Ryan Marine Products Pty., LTD., et al, 151 F. Supp .2d 183 (2001) Connecticut District Court<br /> Ryan owned patent 4411073, issued on 25 October 1983, which concerned devices to measure the pitch of propeller blades. Ryan originally filed the claim on 13 July 1981 it was rejected and then ammended on 4 October 1982. Hale's device called the &quot;Hale Propeller MRI&quot; was developed in 1997. In question are claims 1(b),(c),(f), and 6. A third party, Michigan Wheel Corporation, a distributor of Hale's invention filed for patent invalidity. The important differences between Hale's and Ryan's device are that Hale's does not use gears or worm-drives to rotate the blade and the device does not give direct readouts of the measurements using electric circuits. The issue with claim 1(b) was if a roller was a necessary part of the structure because it prevents skipping of the probe making the measurements more accurate. The court used means-plus-function to rule that the roller was important and Hale did not infringe. The issue with claim 1(c) deals with whether a worm or gear drive is necessary to rotate the blade. Ryan's patent discloses a hand-cranked device, like Hales, but includes a worm-drive. Part of Ryan's ammendment to his claim was to include worm gear to the hand-cranking device and therefore the court used prosecution history estoppel to make their decision because Ryan forfeited that claim (hand-cranked device without worm-drive) in order to get the patent and therefore cannot use doctrine of equivalents to get the claim back. The issue of claim 1(f) was whether the computer in the claim was a special computer needed for the readouts. The court ruled that the claim was not that narrow, but then the court ruled that claim 6 dealt with a computer that receives measurement data from the optical encoder and therefore Hale did not infringe. The patent was also ruled valid using the roller and worm drive to prove that it was non-obvious §103, definitively disclosed §112, and not anticipated by prior art §102(b).<br /> <br /> Gillian Allsup<br /> <br /> <br /> 901281608<br /> <br /> <br /> *Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics &amp; Plastics, Inc. Nos. 2010-1145, 2010-117. (2001) United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit<br /> <br /> <br /> This case began as an infringement lawsuit by Siemens Medical Solutions USA, inc. against Saint-Gobain Ceramics and Plastics, Inc. for the alleged infringement of a patent held by Siemens for a scintillator, a part of an x-ray machine that detects radiation. Saint-Gobain owned a patent for a similar device and the circuit court found that this patent infringed on the patent held by Siemens, which was filed earlier. Though the doctrine of equivalents was used to rule infringement, Saint-Gobain was found to have accidentally, rather than willfully infringed and Siemens was awarded 52.3 million dollars. <br /> <br /> Siemens filed for patent number 4,958,080 on August 4, 1989. This patent was for a scintillator containing cerium-doped- lutetium oxyorthosilicate. This is a component of a radiation detector that absorbs gamma-ray photons from an x-ray machine and converts them to visible light so the results can be interpreted. Saint-Gobain also produces scintillators, filing patent number 6,6424,420 in 2000 for a cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate. The chemical composition differs from that of the Siemens' patent as %10 of the lutetium is substituted for yttrium. These scintillators were sold by Saint-Gobain to Philips Medical Systems, a competitor of Siemens. The circuit court found that the composition of Saint-Gobain's scintillator preformed largely the same function in the same manner as Siemens' patent, and therefore was infringement under the doctrine of equivalence. <br /> <br /> Saint-Gobain filed a motion for a new trail, on the basis that the jury was not told that infringement by the doctrine of equivalence must be proved by clear evidence and argued that damages should be remitted. The Federal Appeals Court did not grant Saint-Gobain a new trial, but did reduces the damages to 44 million. <br /> <br /> *Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283 C.A.Fed. (Mich.), 2010<br /> Adams Respiratory Therapeutics patented an extended release formulation of expectorant. The patent was for Mucinex and was new in that it allowed the expectorant (an aspect to medicine which promotes the discharge of phlegm or other fluid from the respiratory tract). Adams brought suit, alleging that generic manufacturer's (Perrigo's) proposed production and marketing of generic version of the product would infringe its patent. The United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Gordon J. Quist, J., 2010 WL 565195, granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement. Plaintiff appealed. Within the patent Adams specified an amount of expectorant in the drug using the words &quot;at least.&quot; The court found that &quot;at least&quot; did not prevent the use of the doctrine of equivalents and that the doctrine may apply to patents with specific number ranges. Adams patent stated that it would have at least 3500 hr*ng/mL, while Perrigo was using 3494.38 hr*ng/mL (only a 0.189% difference). Adams argued that this number was not substantially different and thus should represent infringement. Perrigo argued that because the claim does not use words of approximation, Adams cannot expand this element to ensnare Perrigo's product. The court found that the fact that the claim does not contain words of approximation does not affect the analysis-“terms like ‘approximately’ serve only to expand the scope of literal infringement, not to enable application of the doctrine of equivalents.” The proper inquiry is whether the accused value is insubstantially different from the claimed value. Because the court found that there was not a substantial difference between the numbers the doctrine of equivalents applied, the order of the district court was vacated and the case was remanded.<br /> <br /> Snooki<br /> <br /> *Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., Slip Copy, 2010 WL 5230892 (2010)<br /> <br /> This case involved a patent for a force-transmitting bearing used with a platform scale. Sunbeam held a patent which specified bearings which were attached to the platform via loose tabs which allowed the bearings to move horizontally. The patent claims required the base of the bearing to be oriented parallel to the platform and remain parallel to the platform at all times. The structure of the accused device was such that the bearings were connection to the platforms using dimples on the lower surface of the platform which the bearings fit into. Sunbeam had criticized prior art which used a similar dimple connection during prosecution beacuse of the potential for unwanted force moments applied by the bearing. The CAFC upheld the District Court's finding of no infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents because bearings which rocked and pivoted, as the accused device did, did not fall within the reach of the patent claims because they did not remain parallel to the platform at all times.<br /> <br /> 901422128<br /> <br /> *Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (2001)<br /> Kustom Signals held a patent for a multimode traffic radar system which will show either the fastest speed or the strongest signal. Three of the claims used the word &quot;or&quot; in their wording. Kustom claimed that the &quot;or&quot; was a logical operator meaning one, the other, or both. Applied Concepts had designed a radar system which returned both the fastest speed and the strongest signal. The Court held that the word &quot;or&quot; was to hold its traditional, customary meaning as being exclusive, not inclusive, of the two statements.<br /> <br /> 901 41 7852<br /> <br /> *Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc., 126 F. 3d 1420 (1997)<br /> <br /> Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of several patents relating to containers for disposing of hazardous medical waste (needles etc.). Devon counter-sued for infringement of one of its similar patents. The district court held (on summary judgment) that there was no infringement by either party literally or equivalently. The appellate court affirmed. <br /> <br /> <br /> Devon’s first alleged infringement was of Sage’s container claiming an elongated slot &quot;at the top&quot; of the apparatus for which to deposit waste, and a &quot;barrier over the slot&quot; to prevent contamination. Devon's patent involved a type of elongated slot that was embedded within the container and a hinged element at the opening. The court ruled no literal infringement because the Devon patent did not include the &quot;at the top&quot; and &quot;over&quot; features of the Sage claim. Even though the devices perform the same function the court ruled no equivalent infringement because the hinged element did not &quot;substantially constrict access&quot; to the container, and the slot was not &quot;substantially at the top&quot; of the container. The court was adamant that equivalent function could not negate the “at the top” and “over” limitations of the patent, stating that such power would reduce patent claims to &quot;functional abstracts&quot; devoid of meaningful structure limitations for the public to reference. A second infringement involved in this case resulted in the court ruling that if patent claims specify a function and recite its importance the patentee cannot later accuse an invention devoid of the specified function of infringement.<br /> <br /> 901419437<br /> <br /> *Siemens Medical Solutions USA, INC. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics &amp; Plastics., F.3d, 2011 WL 651790 (2011)<br /> <br /> Siemens developed, manufactured, and sold PET scanners which made use of scintillator crystals consisting of cerium-doped lutetium oxyorthosilicate (LSO). Saint-Gobain manufactures and sells scintillator crystals for use in PET scanners which consisted of cerium-doped lutetium-yttrium orthosilicate (LYSO). This is chemically different from LSO in that some of the lutetium is substituted for by yttrium. In Saint-Gobain's crystals, 10% of the lutetium atoms are substituted for by yttrium atoms (crystals are 10% Y LYSO). In April of 2007, Siemens sued Saint-Gobain for infringement of claims 1 and 2 of Siemens '080 patent for LSO scintillator crystals and photodetectors. Saint-Gobain aregued that its LYSO crystals are not equivalent to those claimed in the '080 patent because their crystals are separately claimed by their '420 patent. A jury trial found Saint-Gobain infringing upon the claims held by Siemens. Saint-Gobains appeals, and claims that the district court erred in jury instructions, claiming that in cases where an alleged equivalent is separately patented, a higher burden of evidence is required. Their reasoning was that the jury's finding of infringement effectively invalidated their '420 patent for LYSO crystals as the ruling of equivalence implied a conclusion of obviousness. The Court of Appeals disagrees, stating that it is well established that separate patentability does not avoid equivalency as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals also disagrees that the jury's finding of infringement invalidates the '420 patent; it only finds the level of LYSO used in practice (10%) is equivalent to Siemen's LSO crystals. Other compositions of LYSO could well be non-equivalent. Using the function-way-result test which asks whether an element of the an accused product performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way, the Court of Appeals affirms the juries finding of infringement. <br /> <br /> Erich Wolz<br /> <br /> *Sunbeam Products Inc. v. Homedics Products Inc. , US Court of Appeals, District Court of Wisconsin (2010)<br /> This case involved a clear example of non-equivalence relating to the doctrine of equivalence. The patent holder Sunbeam Products brought action against competitor Homedics, alleging infringement of its patent for force-transmitting bearings for a platform scale. This case was decided under the district court of Wisconsin. Sunbeam Products had created platform bearings which translated purely horizontally along a platform which transferred all platform loads into purely vertical loads supported by the bearings. A previous patent, ‘326 patent, encompassed bearings which rocked and pivoted. HoMedics's accused scales all include bearings similar to the bearing disclosed in the ′326 patent. Each of the HoMedics bearings is machined with a nose-like protrusion that fits into a corresponding dimple on the underside of the platform. The trial court noted that the accused bearings all rock and pivot within their corresponding dimples in the underside of the platform. Sunbeam did not dispute that the HoMedics bearings rock and pivot in that manner. Sunbeam's argument was that in addition to rocking and pivoting, the HoMedics bearings were capable of some horizontal movement and therefore infringe the ′420 patent.<br /> In light of its claim construction and the undisputed evidence regarding the operation of the bearings in the accused HoMedics products, the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The court determined that no reasonable juror could find that bearings that rock and pivot remain parallel to the underside of the platform; accordingly, it held that the pivoting bearings in all of the accused products do not literally infringe the ′420 patent.<br /> <br /> The most important distinction that was made in this case was the following statement. “The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to rewrite the claims to encompass what a patentee believes to be an equivalent structure. That is especially true in a case such as this one, where the accused product is not later-developed technology that is insubstantially different from the claimed invention, but instead embodies disavowed prior art. Thus, the district court correctly held that the accused bearings do not infringe the ′420 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.”<br /> <br /> Christine Roetzel - 901425022<br /> <br /> *Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. 717 F.2d 1351<br /> <br /> NASA and Department of Defense, were trying to build a satellite that would orbit the earth. However, they were unable to do so they had problems with the attitude control. Williams, a man who was working for Hughes Co. was able to figure out the problem. He was able to have lab model on 4/2/60 and it was called &quot;dynamic wheel.&quot; Williams presented it to NASA and then Hughes Co and NASA entered an agreement to build the satellite. Williams filed for a patent on 4/18/60 and that became known as &quot;Williams patent.&quot; <br /> However, the govt started to build these spacecrafts that used the same systems from the satellite and did not give compensation to Williams. It went to court and the govt said that Williams patent was invalid because it infringed McLean's telescope. Williams rewrote his claims and stated “McLean's infrared telescope does not indicate the instantaneous spin angle position of his body with reference to a fixed external coordinate system, and it does not indicate the orientation of the axis with reference to a fixed external coordinate system.&quot; The court found Williams patent valid.<br /> Then, the court looked at the spacecraft and compared it to Williams satellite. They found the following similarites: &quot;(1) each is spin-stabilized; (2) each contains a jet on the periphery, connected by a valve to a tank containing fluid for expulsion substantially parallel to the spin axis; (3) each employs sun sensors to sense ISA position; (4) each requires knowledge of orientation relative to a fixed external coordinate system; (5) each contains radio equipment for communicating with the ground; (6) each transmits spin rate and sun angle information to a ground crew; and (7) in each, jet firing is synchronized with ISA position to effect controlled precession and thus to achieve a desired orientation.&quot;<br /> Needless to say the court ruled that govt infringed Williams patent.<br /> <br /> 901439143<br /> <br /> * Sage Products, Inc. v. Devon Industries, Inc. 126 F.3d. 1420 (1997)<br /> <br /> In this case, Sage Products sued Devon Industries for infringement of two of its patents and Devon countersued Sage for infringement of one of its own patents, all of which relate to the disposal of medical waste products such as needles. In trial and on appeal, the courts held that there was no literal infringement nor infringement by the doctrine of equivalents by any party. Sage claimed that Devon's '251 for a &quot;tortuous path&quot; disposal container infringed on both its '728 patent for a sharps disposal container and its '849 patent for the removal and storage of syringe needles. Devon claimed that Sage's '728 patent infringed on its '592 patent for a disposal container.<br /> ** The '728 patent consists of an opening with a curved arc extending above it and another below it (inside the container) with a rotatable L-shaped flap such that waste can be deposited without exposing it again.<br /> ** The '849 patent covers a container with notches for removing needles and a &quot;moveable closure&quot; that allows the container to be closed and reopened as needed.<br /> ** The '251 patent covers a disposal container with a slotted opening at the top and 2 overlapping but displaced obstructions within the container to prevent accessing material that has been disposed of. It also has a closure that permanently locks once closed.<br /> ** The 592 patent covers a container that has a slotted opening and another &quot;baffle&quot; within the container that has another slotted opening horizontally displaced from the first<br /> The courts held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '728 patent because the patent explicitly described a precise configuration of an opening at the &quot;top of the container&quot; with one obstruction &quot;over said slot&quot; and another below, and that '251 configuration was different. They also held that the '251 patent did not infringe on the '849 patent because there was an important difference between permanent closure and closure that can be reopened. Finally, the '728 patent did not infringe on the '592 patents for similar reasons as the first: the configurations were very different. The '592 patent emphasized a horizontal displacement, which was not part of the '728 patent. The courts held that the use of precise language in patents limited the claims and because disposal containers were reasonably simple and straightforward, different configurations could not be equated.<br /> <br /> Julia Potter (jpotter2)<br /> <br /> * Kudlacek v. DBC, Inc. 115 F. Supp. 2d 996 (2000)<br /> <br /> Owner of Patent No. 5,611,325 for an archery bow stabilizer, Donald Kudlacek, brought an infringement suit against competitor DBC, Inc. DBC counterclaimed, stating that its patent for a peep sight targeting system was being infringed. The claim in question was a &quot;threading&quot; limitation on the stabilizer describing how it is adjusted and secured. The District Court decided that neither Kudlacek's stabilizer nor DBC's peep sight target system were infringed. This was because the accused device, the &quot;Super Stix,&quot; was found to not be equivalent to the patented device because it did not infringe all the elements of claim 1. Though the accused device performs, basically, the same function, it does so in a substantially different way; therefore the Doctrine of Equivalents does not apply. Note that the invalidity issue was not settled by finding that the patent was not infringed. <br /> <br /> 901437068<br /> <br /> * Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)<br /> <br /> Adkins v. Lear discussed the assembly and sale of a certain type of gyroscope. The gyroscope design had originally been borrowed by Lear, from Adkins under the terms that Lear would pay a small percentage of their profits to Adkins since Lear was not the original inventor of the gyroscope mechanical design. Conflicts arose when Lear refused to pay Adkins under the claim that their new gyroscope was a unique design that differed from the original design contracted from Adkins. The judges determined that since the new design was similar to the original in all the necessary inner working components and only differed in the external aesthetic features, the new design infringed on the old since it did not provide any new or useful feature. Based on this judgment Lear was required to pay Adkins for any sales of the new gyroscope.<br /> <br /> 901438174<br /> <br /> * Adkins v. Lear, Inc. (1968), (67 Cal.2d 882, 435 P.2d 321, 64 Cal.Rptr. 545)<br /> <br /> I hate to be repetitive, but I read the same case. I will reiterate, it is a case about a dispute over profit sharing. Adkins invented the gyroscope and required Lear to share profits if he used the design. The dispute arose when Lear made an improvement upon the designed and refused to pay profits on this &quot;new and improved&quot; design. This design was really just the innards reworked into a new shape without altering the size or scale. This was ruled to be equivalent to the original design, reinforcing the underlying ideas of the doctrine of equivalents.<br /> <br /> cmadiga1<br /> <br /> Lemelson v. Mattel (1992), (968 F.2d 1202)<br /> <br /> Lemelson sued Mattel, saying that their hotwheels toys infringed on his patent for a flexible track for toy cars. In the original case, Hotwheels was ruled to have infringed on Lemelson's patent. The history of the patents in the toy race car tracks was important in this case. Before Lemelson received his patent, Giardiol had a patent for a flexible car track with an internal support. Mattel's track was very similar in all aspects of the Giardiol patent, but did not have an internal frame. Lemelson's patent was originally denied as being completely anticipated by Giardiol. However by adding claims to the vertical supports which define the track and keep the car on the track Lemelson was able to distinguish his product and obtain a patent. Therefore, these were ruled as the defining characteristics of Lemelson's patent. In the original case, the jury found that Hotwheels product did not contain these characteristics. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the previous ruling saying that the jury had made a logical error.<br /> <br /> Andy Stulc</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=4459 2011-03-30T15:49:05Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> *[[Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Nonobviousness Page]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Homework due 3/23/11]]<br /> *ADAMS RESPIRATORY THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. PERRIGO COMPANY (HW for 3/30/11)</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_3/23/11&diff=4241 2011-03-23T00:33:27Z

<p>Snooki: /* IN re BAXTER TRAVENOL LABS */</p> <hr /> <div>==IN re BAXTER TRAVENOL LABS==<br /> 952 F.2d 388, C.A.Fed., 1991.<br /> <br /> &quot;Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed rejection of certain claims in reexamination of United States patent pertaining to invention relating to multiple blood bag system for collecting, processing and storing therapeutic components of whole blood and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Lourie, Circuit Judge, held that patent claims were anticipated by document describing new blood bag system, and therefore were invalid.&quot;<br /> <br /> In this case Baxter International, Inc. appeals the February 28, 1991, decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The Board affirmed the rejection of specific claims as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)as well as the rejection of claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. <br /> <br /> The patent in question claimed a device which was a multi-bag system for &quot;collecting, processing and storing&quot; components of whole blood. Most of the claims of the patent were said to be anticipated because of a document which described a new blood bag system similar to that claimed. The court determined that because of this document (and its use as prior art) the claims were obvious. The court determined that the document maintained prior art status despite describing an experimental procedure. Additionally, the court maintained that in order for unexpected results to be used as evidence of nonobviousness than the results must be unexpected when compared with prior art (this was not the case as results would have been the same as expected from the document discussed).</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Homework_due_3/23/11&diff=4240 2011-03-23T00:22:09Z

<p>Snooki: Created page with &quot;==IN re BAXTER TRAVENOL LABS== 952 F.2d 388, C.A.Fed., 1991.&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==IN re BAXTER TRAVENOL LABS==<br /> 952 F.2d 388, C.A.Fed., 1991.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=4239 2011-03-23T00:20:54Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> *[[Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Nonobviousness Page]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Homework due 3/23/11]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=ESB_Briefs&diff=3916 2011-03-03T19:11:33Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Here is a list of briefs for the Electric Storage Battery Co v. Shimadzu case. Add your name next to the list for the one with the fewest names and read that one.<br /> * Reply Brief for Respondents. (Feb. 27, 1939)<br /> #Michael Madden<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> * Reply Brief for Petitioner. (Feb. 7, 1939)<br /> #Cmadiga1<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> * Brief for Respondents (Jan. 28, 1939)<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> * Brief for Petitioner. (Jan. 1939)<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #<br /> #</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3179 2011-02-09T17:18:35Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> This case addressed the patentability of an invention which consisted of combining previously known devices or materials. This case sets the precedent that a combination of prior art must be greater than the sum of its parts. It must accomplish a new and useful product. The product had to be an improvement that was more significant that the improved qualities gained by using improved materials. In this case, the invention was improved due to the improved qualities of the new knob material and thus it was found it was not patentable. The new device did not accomplish a new task or do it more effectively or efficiently, it was simply better due to the new material.<br /> <br /> This new substitution ruling had impacts on the nonobviousness of an invention. It was seen that an improvement simply due to improved materials was obvious. This was because it could be done by an ordinary mechanic in the art. This decision set the rule that an invention cannot be something which would be achieved by a person of ordinary skill of the art. This was a very important qualification which would continue to hold.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> The court considered secondary criteria for determining the patentability of the invention. In this case the invention was argued on the basis of the long felt need for it. However, this need and other considerations cannot stand alone as the evidence for patentability—the patent must first meet all primary considerations. The court determines that secondary considerations without meeting criteria for primary considerations is not grounds for a patent<br /> <br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> The court determined that a patent cannot be a combination of prior art. It must add to the total knowledge of the field and aid in advancement. The court decided that the invention must be recognized as an advance for the experts in the invention’s field.<br /> <br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> The court determines that a combination of known devices or materials must contribute something new. This combination is not patentable unless it is an improvement beyond the change in elements. It should accomplish something new or be a great improvement on something previously known. The improvement cannot simply be a result of using improved components.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> The court’s ruling in this case was based on the court’s understanding of the newly created Section 103. The court interpreted Congress’ intentions of the section and put it in action in this case. The case shows the progression from the previously ambiguous language of “inventiveness” to the new standard of non-obviousness. The court understood that congress was trying to emphasize the use of the word nonobvious. This new language allowed for some criteria when determining patentability. This case shows some new criteria of a patent. The court focuses on the invention’s ability to solve a long standing problem, the invention’s success and impact on its industry, and the skill required to create the invention. This was the court’s implementation of the newly implemented Act of 1952. It set a standard for the interpretation of nonobviousness for future cases. <br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> In this case the court ruling displayed a greater shift toward non-obviousness. The court reviewed previous rulings, and traced the foundations of Section 103. In this case the court determined that Section 103 was addressing inconsistent rulings by setting a clearer criteria for patentability. The court decided that this new section provided a better test for a creation’s patentability. The court decided that this new section would allow for more investigation into a patent’s validity. The new section allowed the court to determine a greater set of criteria for patentability. This set of criteria was presented in this case to determine nonobviousness. <br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> This case emphasizes the necessity to look at all evidence regarding a patent. Adams’ invention seems to be a combination or prior art. However, in reality the invention is a new, improved, useful and nonobvious creation. By examining the evidence and prior art more closely, the court determined that prior art had actually been leading away from Adams’ creation instead of towards it. The court had decided that because of this and other factors the invention was nonobvious and satisfied patentability requirements. The major contribution from this case was the need to fully examine the evidence and prior is as well as secondary conditions to patentability.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3177 2011-02-09T17:12:12Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> This case addressed the patentability of an invention which consisted of combining previously known devices or materials. This case sets the precedent that a combination of prior art must be greater than the sum of its parts. It must accomplish a new and useful product. The product had to be an improvement that was more significant that the improved qualities gained by using improved materials. In this case, the invention was improved due to the improved qualities of the new knob material and thus it was found it was not patentable. The new device did not accomplish a new task or do it more effectively or efficiently, it was simply better due to the new material.<br /> <br /> This new substitution ruling had impacts on the nonobviousness of an invention. It was seen that an improvement simply due to improved materials was obvious. This was because it could be done by an ordinary mechanic in the art. This decision set the rule that an invention cannot be something which would be achieved by a person of ordinary skill of the art. This was a very important qualification which would continue to hold.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> The court considered secondary criteria for determining the patentability of the invention. In this case the invention was argued on the basis of the long felt need for it. However, this need and other considerations cannot stand alone as the evidence for patentability—the patent must first meet all primary considerations. The court determines that secondary considerations without meeting criteria for primary considerations is not grounds for a patent<br /> <br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> The court determined that a patent cannot be a combination of prior art. It must add to the total knowledge of the field and aid in advancement. The court decided that the invention must be recognized as an advance for the experts in the invention’s field.<br /> <br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> The court determines that a combination of known devices or materials must contribute something new. This combination is not patentable unless it is an improvement beyond the change in elements. It should accomplish something new or be a great improvement on something previously known. The improvement cannot simply be a result of using improved components.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> The court’s ruling in this case was based on the court’s understanding of the newly created Section 103. The court interpreted Congress’ intentions of the section and put it in action in this case. The case shows the progression from the previously ambiguous language of “inventiveness” to the new standard of non-obviousness. The court understood that congress was trying to emphasize the use of the word nonobvious. This new language allowed for some criteria when determining patentability. This case shows some new criteria of a patent. The court focuses on the invention’s ability to solve a long standing problem, the invention’s success and impact on its industry, and the skill required to create the invention. This was the court’s implementation of the newly implemented Act of 1952. It set a standard for the interpretation of nonobviousness for future cases. <br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> In this case the court ruling displayed a greater shift toward non-obviousness. The court reviewed previous rulings, and traced the foundations of Section 103. In this case the court determined that Section 103 was addressing inconsistent rulings by setting a clearer criteria for patentability. The court decided that this new section provided a better test for a creation’s patentability. The court decided that this new section would allow for more investigation into a patent’s validity. The new section allowed the court to determine a greater set of criteria for patentability. This set of criteria was presented in this case to determine nonobviousness. <br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3176 2011-02-09T16:59:39Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> This case addressed the patentability of an invention which consisted of combining previously known devices or materials. This case sets the precedent that a combination of prior art must be greater than the sum of its parts. It must accomplish a new and useful product. The product had to be an improvement that was more significant that the improved qualities gained by using improved materials. In this case, the invention was improved due to the improved qualities of the new knob material and thus it was found it was not patentable. The new device did not accomplish a new task or do it more effectively or efficiently, it was simply better due to the new material.<br /> <br /> This new substitution ruling had impacts on the nonobviousness of an invention. It was seen that an improvement simply due to improved materials was obvious. This was because it could be done by an ordinary mechanic in the art. This decision set the rule that an invention cannot be something which would be achieved by a person of ordinary skill of the art. This was a very important qualification which would continue to hold.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> The court considered secondary criteria for determining the patentability of the invention. In this case the invention was argued on the basis of the long felt need for it. However, this need and other considerations cannot stand alone as the evidence for patentability—the patent must first meet all primary considerations. The court determines that secondary considerations without meeting criteria for primary considerations is not grounds for a patent<br /> <br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> The court determined that a patent cannot be a combination of prior art. It must add to the total knowledge of the field and aid in advancement. The court decided that the invention must be recognized as an advance for the experts in the invention’s field.<br /> <br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> The court determines that a combination of known devices or materials must contribute something new. This combination is not patentable unless it is an improvement beyond the change in elements. It should accomplish something new or be a great improvement on something previously known. The improvement cannot simply be a result of using improved components.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> The court’s ruling in this case was based on the court’s understanding of the newly created Section 103. The court interpreted Congress’ intentions of the section and put it in action in this case. The case shows the progression from the previously ambiguous language of “inventiveness” to the new standard of non-obviousness. The court understood that congress was trying to emphasize the use of the word nonobvious. This new language allowed for some criteria when determining patentability. This case shows some new criteria of a patent. The court focuses on the invention’s ability to solve a long standing problem, the invention’s success and impact on its industry, and the skill required to create the invention. This was the court’s implementation of the newly implemented Act of 1952. It set a standard for the interpretation of nonobviousness for future cases. <br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3175 2011-02-09T16:58:55Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> This case addressed the patentability of an invention which consisted of combining previously known devices or materials. This case sets the precedent that a combination of prior art must be greater than the sum of its parts. It must accomplish a new and useful product. The product had to be an improvement that was more significant that the improved qualities gained by using improved materials. In this case, the invention was improved due to the improved qualities of the new knob material and thus it was found it was not patentable. The new device did not accomplish a new task or do it more effectively or efficiently, it was simply better due to the new material.<br /> <br /> This new substitution ruling had impacts on the nonobviousness of an invention. It was seen that an improvement simply due to improved materials was obvious. This was because it could be done by an ordinary mechanic in the art. This decision set the rule that an invention cannot be something which would be achieved by a person of ordinary skill of the art. This was a very important qualification which would continue to hold.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> The court considered secondary criteria for determining the patentability of the invention. In this case the invention was argued on the basis of the long felt need for it. However, this need and other considerations cannot stand alone as the evidence for patentability—the patent must first meet all primary considerations. The court determines that secondary considerations without meeting criteria for primary considerations is not grounds for a patent<br /> <br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> The court determined that a patent cannot be a combination of prior art. It must add to the total knowledge of the field and aid in advancement. The court decided that the invention must be recognized as an advance for the experts in the invention’s field.<br /> <br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> The court determines that a combination of known devices or materials must contribute something new. This combination is not patentable unless it is an improvement beyond the change in elements. It should accomplish something new or be a great improvement on something previously known. The improvement cannot simply be a result of using improved components.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> The court’s ruling in this case was based on the court’s understanding of the newly created Section 103. The court interpreted Congress’ intentions of the section and put it in action in this case. The case shows the progression from the previously ambiguous language of “inventiveness” to the new standard of non-obviousness. The court understood that congress was trying to emphasize the use of the word nonobvious. This new language allowed for some criteria when determining patentability. This case shows some new criteria of a patent. The court focuses on the invention’s ability to solve a long standing problem, the invention’s success and impact on its industry, and the skill required to create the invention. This was the court’s implementation of the newly implemented Act of 1952. It set a standard for the interpretation of nonobviousness for future cases. <br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3172 2011-02-09T16:40:07Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> This case addressed the patentability of an invention which consisted of combining previously known devices or materials. This case sets the precedent that a combination of prior art must be greater than the sum of its parts. It must accomplish a new and useful product. The product had to be an improvement that was more significant that the improved qualities gained by using improved materials. In this case, the invention was improved due to the improved qualities of the new knob material and thus it was found it was not patentable. The new device did not accomplish a new task or do it more effectively or efficiently, it was simply better due to the new material.<br /> <br /> This new substitution ruling had impacts on the nonobviousness of an invention. It was seen that an improvement simply due to improved materials was obvious. This was because it could be done by an ordinary mechanic in the art. This decision set the rule that an invention cannot be something which would be achieved by a person of ordinary skill of the art. This was a very important qualification which would continue to hold.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> The court considered secondary criteria for determining the patentability of the invention. In this case the invention was argued on the basis of the long felt need for it. However, this need and other considerations cannot stand alone as the evidence for patentability—the patent must first meet all primary considerations. The court determines that secondary considerations without meeting criteria for primary considerations is not grounds for a patent<br /> <br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> The court determined that a patent cannot be a combination of prior art. It must add to the total knowledge of the field and aid in advancement. The court decided that the invention must be recognized as an advance for the experts in the invention’s field.<br /> <br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> The court determines that a combination of known devices or materials must contribute something new. This combination is not patentable unless it is an improvement beyond the change in elements. It should accomplish something new or be a great improvement on something previously known. The improvement cannot simply be a result of using improved components.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3169 2011-02-09T16:31:50Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> This case addressed the patentability of an invention which consisted of combining previously known devices or materials. This case sets the precedent that a combination of prior art must be greater than the sum of its parts. It must accomplish a new and useful product. The product had to be an improvement that was more significant that the improved qualities gained by using improved materials. In this case, the invention was improved due to the improved qualities of the new knob material and thus it was found it was not patentable. The new device did not accomplish a new task or do it more effectively or efficiently, it was simply better due to the new material.<br /> <br /> This new substitution ruling had impacts on the nonobviousness of an invention. It was seen that an improvement simply due to improved materials was obvious. This was because it could be done by an ordinary mechanic in the art. This decision set the rule that an invention cannot be something which would be achieved by a person of ordinary skill of the art. This was a very important qualification which would continue to hold.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3159 2011-02-09T16:18:56Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> <br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> <br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> <br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3157 2011-02-09T16:18:27Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Non-Obviousness Overview==<br /> In order to further the development of science and technology the United States implemented the patent system. This system has been successful, however, it has led to confusion between what does and does not constitute a valid patent. The original use of the vague word “invention” led to many of this ambiguity. However, with the Patent Act of 1952 Congress created Section 103 of US Code which decided that a patent must be “non-obvious.” <br /> Throughout the Supreme Court cases the different criteria for what constitutes a non-obvious invention can be found. The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood set the original foundations for the non-obvious requirement when it addressed the patentability of combining different known creations. In this case the court decided that an inventor must create a final product which is greater than the sum of the parts. The inventor’s combination must be new and useful and cannot be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This is to say that substituting materials in a fashion that only improves the whole because one of the substituted parts has more desirable qualities is not worthy of invention.<br /> The A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment case furthered the development of the non-obvious requirement. This case gave more insight into what specifically could be considered obvious. In this case, combinations of previous creations were considered once again. However, this case furthered the requirements for a patent’s obviousness by setting the precedent for secondary considerations. This showed that the court may consider things such as commercial success, meeting of a longstanding need, and previous failures to review a patent’s validity.<br /> In Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, the court continued with the nonobviousness of a patent by examining the failed attempts prior to a successful invention. This is to say that the court looked at the attempts at creating an invention similar to that of the patent which had been unsuccessful. Additionally, furthering the secondary considerations the court looked into the impact of the invention on the product’s market to determine if the device was needed. <br /> In Graham v. Deere the court established a more concrete set of criteria for an invention’s patentability. The criteria included the scope of prior art, the invention’s differences from prior art, level of skill in the art, and the secondary considerations previously mentioned. Also, in this case the court established that the need for a moment of genius was not required to make an invention. This was due to the fact that many great inventions take years of research and are not a result of one moment of ingenuity. <br /> In U.S. v. Adams the court continued to establish rules regarding the obviousness of inventions. The US v. Adams case dealt with the obviousness of combinations and reviewing the prior art. Although an invention may appear to be very similar to that of prior art, the end result must be considered. If the inventor has a combination which outperforms previous inventions or even is contrary to the teachings of previous inventions than it should be considered patentable.<br /> With the institution of Section 103 (and thus the non-obvious requirement) Congress set a new standard for patentability. The courts furthered the criteria with influential decisions and set guidelines for future patents. However, the patentability of an invention will never be a black and white topic and the criteria will continue to develop as years pass.<br /> <br /> ==Historical Development==<br /> The following are cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. <br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> The inventive step is the precursor to the idea of nonobviousness. The basis for this aspect to a patent is first seen in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood. In this case the court determines that a patent is valid only if the skill required to create the invention was greater than that of an ‘ordinary mechanic’ in the field of the invention. The court said that this level of skill is required of a patentable invention. This ruling is to say that without the ‘inventive step’ of a skilled mechanic an item is not patentable. If an average mechanic were able to create the invention than issuing a patent would hinder further scientific development (as the solution would have been obvious). The inventive step sets the stage for the nonobvious requirement by requiring a patent to be more than the work of an average mechanic.<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 established Section 103 of the US Code and the requirement for a nonobvious invention. However, in addition to being a nonobvious creation, it must also fit all requirements to Section 102 of the US Code. From this section it can be seen that the invention must be ‘novel.’ The patent must be a new creation, not known in prior art, and it must be nonobvious to an average person in the field of the invention. A patent’s validity is dependent on its ability to meet both the novelty and nonobvious requirements. <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> The Patent Act of 1952 added Section 103 to US Code. Congress had determined that the use of the word ‘invention’ was leading to uncertainty when trying to determine patentability. The act created a written standard which the courts had already been practicing. The implementation of this act and the resulting ‘nonobvious’ requirement was seen in Graham v. John Deere. From here we see that congress had intended to avoid the vague expression, ‘invention,’ and establish the more definable nonobvious requirement. <br /> <br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> The court determined that there were secondary aspects to a patent which may be beneficial when determining the patent’s nonobviousness. A patent, however, cannot be considered valid based on secondary considerations alone—all primary considerations must be met as well. Secondary considerations are not strict rules and cannot be applied without proper consideration of the patent. <br /> After all primary considerations for the patent are met, the secondary considerations may further the patent’s case for nonobviousness. Examples of secondary considerations include profitability or popularity, meeting a longstanding need and failure of others to solve a problem.<br /> <br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3023 2011-02-09T05:08:00Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Historical Development==<br /> The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.<br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention.<br /> *First the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki%27s_Nonobviousness_Page&diff=3020 2011-02-09T05:02:53Z

<p>Snooki: Created page with &quot;==Historical Development== The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (185...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Historical Development==<br /> The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.<br /> <br /> ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)===<br /> <br /> Prior to [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] an invention only had to be novel. This case basically established the notion that there had to me more to it, some sort of threshold for inventivness, which ultimately became the idea of ''nonobviousness''.<br /> <br /> :...the novelty consisted in the substitution of the clay knob in the place of one made of metal or wood, as the case might be. And in order to appreciate still more clearly the extent of the novelty claimed, it is proper to add, that this knob of potter's clay is not new, and therefore constitutes no part of the discovery. If it was, a very different question would arise, as it might very well be urged, and successfully urged, that a knob of a new composition of matter, to which this old contrivance had been applied, and which resulted in a new and useful article, was the proper subject of a patent.<br /> <br /> :The novelty would consist in the new composition made practically useful for the purposes of life, by the means and contrivances mentioned. It would be a new manufacture, and nonetheless so, within the meaning of the patent law, because the means employed to adapt the new composition to a useful purpose was old, or well known.<br /> <br /> :But in the case before us, the knob is not new, nor the metallic shank and spindle, nor the dovetail form of the cavity in the knob, nor the means by which the metallic shank is securely fastened therein. All these were well known, and in common use, and the only thing new is the substitution of a knob of a different material from that heretofore used in connection with this arrangement.<br /> <br /> :Now it may very well be, that, by connecting the clay or porcelain knob with the metallic shank in this well known mode, an article is produced better and cheaper than in the case of the metallic or wood knob; but this does not result from any new mechanical device or contrivance, but from the fact, that the material of which the knob is composed happens to be better adapted to the purpose for which it is made. The improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new, over that previously employed in making the knob.<br /> <br /> :But this of itself can never be the subject of a patent. No one will pretend that a machine, made, in whole or in part, of materials better adapted to the purpose for which it is used than the materials of which the old one is constructed, and for that reason better and cheaper, can be distinguished from the old one, or, in the sense of the patent law, can entitle the manufacturer to a patent.<br /> <br /> :The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention. It may afford evidence of judgment and skill in the selection and adaptation of the materials in the manufacture of the instrument for the purposes intended, but nothing more.<br /> <br /> It can be seen in this pronouncement of the court opinion by Justice Nelson, that the original requirement of novelty is not satisfactory, as the knob designed by Hotchkiss is a new product. Although the term &quot;nonobviousness&quot; will not be developed for some time, the court's decision hinges on the fact that the mere substitution of better suited materials is too obvious a development to warrant a patent. The fundamental premise of nonobviousness is presented a few paragraphs later, as Justice Nelson states,<br /> <br /> :&quot;....unless more ingenuity and skill in applying the old method of fastening the shank and the knob were required in the application of it to the clay or porcelain knob than ''were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business'', there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingeunity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor.&quot;<br /> <br /> Thus, it is made clear that an invention must not only be novel, but must require a level of ingenuity that exceeds that of an individual with ordinary skill in the related field.<br /> <br /> ===A&amp;P Tea v. Supermarket Equipment (1950)===<br /> <br /> While it pre-dates the language of section 103, [[A. &amp; P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147 (1950)]] discussed some of the more difficult issues related to the level of invention. In particular, this case dealt with three significant issues related to the process of determining patentability:<br /> <br /> *First, that the &quot;level of invention&quot; was partly evidenced by &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; which is a standard used today for nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> The importance of a &quot;long felt but unsatisfied need&quot; in the determination of nonobviousness is that it is difficult to claim that an invention is obvious if there has been a demand for a certain product and no one has been able to fulfill that need. However, it is important to note that there are two requirements that must be met here. There must be a need for the product and the need must have existed for a long time. If the need is relatively new, then it is difficult to claim that a person with ordinary skill in the field would have not developed such a design had he been aware of demand for such a device. On the other hand, if the market related to a certain field has provided no sign that there is a need for such an improvement, then it can be argued that the design would have been obvious had anyone expressed interest in the proposed device.<br /> <br /> *Second, it expressed a bias toward patent protection at the frontier of science or engineering, but not for more mundane things like plows, etc.<br /> <br /> In Graham v. John Deere, the history of the patent process is discussed, particularly Thomas Jefferson's outlook on the purpose of providing a patent. Jefferson made it clear that patents were only to be granted for inventions that furthered human knowledge and were new and useful. The granting of patents for small details, obvious improvements, or frivolous devices was neither worthwhile nor helpful. In A&amp;P v. Supermarket Corp., Jefferson's sentiment is echoed, except the focus of the court is narrowed further to the important frontier of science and engineering. As Justice Douglas states, &quot;the purpose is to promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts,&quot; and the two disciplines most associated with progress at that time (and still currently) are science and engineering. Even later, the court states, &quot;patents serve a higher end-the advancement of science,&quot; which make this point very clear.<br /> <br /> *Third, it dealt with the issue of the fact that any invention is basically a combination of old elements.<br /> <br /> The court's outlook on the evaluation of patents in regard to the combination of prior elements is best summarized in the following explanation. &quot;The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, peform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them is not patentable invention....only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable.&quot;<br /> <br /> ===35 USC 103 (1952)===<br /> This section of the code was adopted in 1952 and prohibits a patent in a case where<br /> :the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.<br /> <br /> ===Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb (1955)===<br /> <br /> In [[Lyon v. Bausch &amp; Lomb, 224 F.2d 530 (1955)]] Learned Hand, in his brilliance, expounded on the new standard thusly:<br /> :Therefore we at length come to the question whether Lyon's contribution, his added step, was enough to support a patent. It certainly would have done so twenty or thirty years ago; indeed it conforms to the accepted standards of that time. The most competent workers in the field had for at least ten years been seeking a hardy, tenacious coating to prevent reflection; there had been a number of attempts, none satisfactory; meanwhile nothing in the implementary arts had been lacking to put the advance into operation; when it appeared, it supplanted the existing practice and occupied substantially the whole field. We do not see how any combination of evidence could more completely demonstrate that, simple as it was, the change had not been &quot;obvious * * * to a person having ordinary skill in the art&quot; — § 103. On the other hand it must be owned that, had the case come up for decision within twenty, or perhaps, twenty-five, years before the Act of 1952 went into effect on January 1, 1953, it is almost certain that the claims would have been held invalid. The Courts of Appeal have very generally found in the recent opinions of the Supreme Court a disposition to insist upon a stricter test of invention than it used to apply — indefinite it is true, but indubitably stricter than that defined in § 103.4<br /> <br /> ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)===<br /> <br /> In [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] indicated a shift away from trying to establish a level of &quot;inventiveness&quot; to the statutory language of &quot;nonobviousness.&quot; The criteria to determine nonobviousness include<br /> * scope and content of the prior art;<br /> * differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;<br /> * level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,<br /> * secondary considerations, including:<br /> ** commercial success of the invention;<br /> ** long-felt but unsolved needs;<br /> ** failure of others to find a solution, etc.<br /> <br /> ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)===<br /> <br /> * 1966: [[US v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966)]] All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.<br /> <br /> ===Anderson's Black Rock v. Pavement Salvage (1969)===<br /> Things seem relatively clear at this point, but the Supreme Court seemingly basically messed it all up again in [[Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)]] by returning the focus to &quot;inventiveness&quot; by revisiting the old problem of when a combination of old or know elements can become patentable.<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion to Combine==<br /> [[In Re Rouffet]] deals with the issue of a combination of previously-patented elements. The cases above all pre-dated the 1952 statute and the 1966 Supreme Court cases.<br /> <br /> :&quot;When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.&quot;<br /> :&quot;[T]he suggestion to combine requirement is a safeguard against the use of hindsight combinations to negate patentability. While the skill level is a component of the inquiry for a suggestion to combine, a lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. Otherwise a high level of ordinary skill in an art field would almost always preclude patentable inventions. As this court has often noted, invention itself is the process of combining prior art in a nonobvious manner.<br /> <br /> ==Objective Tests==<br /> Two important considerations were the focus of [[Hybritech v. Monoclonal Antiboties, 802 F.2d 1375]].<br /> *A lot of the evidences hinges on laboratory notebooks. The CAFC held that even though the lab notebooks were not witnessed until months or about a year after did not preclude them of being of credible evidentiary value.<br /> *The secondary considerations, commercial success, are not optional considerations. If evidence is available pertaining to them, they ''must'' be considered by the court.<br /> *This case also considers the concept of ''enablement'' which means that that patent specification must be complete enough so that someone with ordinary skill in the art would be able to make the invention. Enablement is set out in 35 USC 112.<br /> <br /> ==The Inventive Step==<br /> <br /> ==Relationship with Novelty==<br /> ==Nonobviousness vs. Invention==<br /> ==Secondary Considerations==<br /> ==Ordinary Skill in the Art==<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co. (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[Reiner v. I. Leon Co.]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US (full text)]]<br /> <br /> [[South Corp. v. US]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=3018 2011-02-09T05:02:43Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> *[[Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki's Nonobviousness Page]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki_Homework_due_2/4/11&diff=2345 2011-02-04T15:07:54Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Assume it is 2015 and you work for one of the companies in either the Graham or Adams case. Your corporate counsel has approached you to get information needed for litigation about why the patent being litigated is or is not obvious in light of the prior art. Based only on the two patents you read for Wednesday's assignment, write an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of non-obviousness and an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of invalidity of the patent under 103. That is, give both sides of the argument.<br /> <br /> ==Case==<br /> William Graham filed US Patent No. 2,627,798 for a clamp for a vibrating shank plow in 1951. The patent created a way for plow shanks to pass obstructions without issue. This was accomplished by allowing the plow shank to be pushed upward through the use of a hinge. In this new patent Graham reference a previous patent he had been granted. However, the only new aspects to the design were that the shank had been moved to below the hinge and a stirrup and connection had been added to the hinge.<br /> <br /> ==Argument for Nonobviousness==<br /> U.S.C. 103 states “A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.” Previously, Graham had failed to prove the nonobvious nature of his device in court. He was unable to convince the court that the hinge in the ‘798 patent, despite a new plate and support concept, was a new aspect to a shank plow. It is clear, however, that because of the reduction of forces and as a result the reduction of wear on the plow, that this device was an improvement on the previous devices. Such an improvement is extremely desirable for one using plow shanks which shows a need for the new device. This new patent made the necessary improvements to old patent (‘811) to create a better mechanism for plow shanks. He had solved the need for reduced forces and wear on the plow which would thus improve plow life. Such an improvement is nonobvious based on the lack of previous effective mechanisms despite the need for them. Although the changes made from the ‘811 patent may seem simple and inconsequential it clearly took Mr. Graham time and effort to improve on the ‘811 patent. It would take him time to detect wear and then to create a solution which would improve the wear occurring on the ‘811 device. The time and effort which were required for the improvement were substantial and result in a very improved device, despite the seemingly simply modification made for the ‘798 patent. The time and effort required show the necessary thought and skill it took to improve the ‘811 patent. Such time and effort would not be required of an obvious solution. Additionally, even someone educated in the field may not see the advantages to the improvements made for the ‘798 patent. It is not obvious that the location of the hinge would result in such drastic improvement. The new design took thought above the average mechanic in the field and resulted in advantages clear to every expert and nonexpert alike. Due to these reasons this patent should uphold nonobviousness and remain valid.<br /> <br /> ==Argument Against Nonobviousness==<br /> Mr. Graham made submitted the ‘798 patent with ‘improvements’ on the ‘811 patent. The ‘improvement’ consisted of little more than a new hinge. This hinge closely resembled hinges in similar patents such as the hinge seen in the Glencoe patent. The new patent should not be patentable with the known previous art at the time. The only changes from the ‘811 patent were the bolted connections to the hinge and the position. Glencoe had already created a shank in which forces and wear were being deflected along a plane instead of a point. Graham’s design was different in that the wear point was in a different location than in the Glencoe design, however, it is still a similar idea and design. It would appear that the ‘798 patent is little more than a combination of Graham’s own ‘811 patent and Glencoe’s ‘076 patent. Additionally, the improvement in the ‘798 hinge is not of nonobvious nature. It is clear to an engineer that to reduce wear on a point one must spread out the forces over an area. It would be obvious to an engineer that spreading forces out would result in reduced wear and better tool life by adding a hinge. His only major difference in the patent is the added flexibility of his design. However, this aspect was not an aspect to his design which he claimed for patentability. Graham combined previous patents with minor alterations to claim a new device. Such combinations were not greater than the previous prior art and offered no creativity or particular skill in the art. Given the advantages to the Glencoe patent the next improvement on the ‘811 patent would clearly be to reduce wear. The method of doing this would be obvious to an engineer as would the reason for the improvement. There was little new thought in the ‘798 patent and it was mostly comprised of previously patented devices. There is no new aspect which would not be obvious to an average engineer and as such this patent is clearly invalid.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki_Homework_due_2/4/11&diff=2207 2011-02-04T02:48:37Z

<p>Snooki: /* Assignment */</p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Assume it is 2015 and you work for one of the companies in either the Graham or Adams case. Your corporate counsel has approached you to get information needed for litigation about why the patent being litigated is or is not obvious in light of the prior art. Based only on the two patents you read for Wednesday's assignment, write an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of non-obviousness and an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of invalidity of the patent under 103. That is, give both sides of the argument.<br /> <br /> ==Case==<br /> William Graham filed US Patent No. 2,627,798 for a clamp for a vibrating shank plow in 1951. The patent created a way for plow shanks to pass obstructions without issue. This was accomplished by allowing the plow shank to be pushed upward through the use of a hinge. In this new patent Graham reference a previous patent he had been granted. However, the only new aspects to the design were that the shank had been moved to below the hinge and a stirrup and connection had been added to the hinge.<br /> <br /> ==Argument for Nonobviousness==<br /> <br /> ==Argument Against Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki_Homework_due_2/4/11&diff=2206 2011-02-04T02:46:38Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Assume it is 2015 and you work for one of the companies in either the Graham or Adams case. Your corporate counsel has approached you to get information needed for litigation about why the patent being litigates is or is not obvious in light of the prior art. Based only on the two patents you read for Wednesday's assignment, write an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of non-obviousness and an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of invalidity of the patent under 103. That is, give both sides of the argument.<br /> <br /> ==Case==<br /> William Graham filed US Patent No. 2,627,798 for a clamp for a vibrating shank plow in 1951. The patent created a way for plow shanks to pass obstructions without issue. This was accomplished by allowing the plow shank to be pushed upward through the use of a hinge. In this new patent Graham reference a previous patent he had been granted. However, the only new aspects to the design were that the shank had been moved to below the hinge and a stirrup and connection had been added to the hinge.<br /> <br /> ==Argument for Nonobviousness==<br /> <br /> ==Argument Against Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Snooki_Homework_due_2/4/11&diff=2179 2011-02-04T02:00:25Z

<p>Snooki: Created page with &quot;==Assignment== Assume it is 2015 and you work for one of the companies in either the Graham or Adams case. Your corporate counsel has approached you to get information needed for...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Assume it is 2015 and you work for one of the companies in either the Graham or Adams case. Your corporate counsel has approached you to get information needed for litigation about why the patent being litigates is or is not obvious in light of the prior art. Based only on the two patents you read for Wednesday's assignment, write an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of non-obviousness and an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of invalidity of the patent under 103. That is, give both sides of the argument.<br /> <br /> ==Homework==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=2177 2011-02-04T01:58:57Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> *[[Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> *[[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=2175 2011-02-04T01:58:10Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> [[Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> [[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=2174 2011-02-04T01:57:39Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> [[Snooki Homework due 1/28/11]]<br /> [[Snooki Homework due 2/4/11]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1498 2011-01-28T03:44:53Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> The patent I chose is the toy which became well known as “Skip-It.” The toy, invented and sold by Tiger Electronics, was rotated around a child’s ankle in a circular path and counted the successive number of rotations the toy made. The ability to rotate an extremity in a circular path to rotate an object (such as a Hula Hoop) created a fun test of dexterity. A game designed to test one’s ability to rotate such an object will not only provide amusement but also help to improve coordination and muscle stamina. Any game of this type would be improved greatly by not needing to count the repetitions oneself. The solution to this is to create a toy which can rotate around a child’s hand or foot and count the number of rotations completed. The toy which Tiger Electronics came up with was one which would rotate horizontally, in a circular path, around the wearer’s ankle. They came up with a design which would require the wearer to rotate the toy with one leg while jumping over the toy with the other leg upon each rotation. The additional requirement of the jump made the game exponentially more challenging. If one is able to continually play they could physically benefit from the active game. The toy consists of a ring which is worn on the player’s ankle, a ball with the counting mechanism enclosed in it, and a plastic rod which connects the two. The ball weights the toy at the end to enhance the ability to rotate the toy. Enclosed in the ball is the gear set which is used to count the rotations. As the drum revolves during play the intermeshing gears rotate relative to each other. On the outer surface of the drum is a rubber ring. This ring allows for the reduction of noise and contact with most household surfaces without damage. Additionally, then a player beings rotating their foot in a circular motion the drum will begin to rotate relative to the foot. The rubber ring, when contacting the floor, will cause the drum to rotate relative to the wearer’s foot. This rotation will then enact the intermeshing gears. After a predetermined number of drum rotations the gears will have rotated enough to turn the counter to the next successive number. This allows the toy to automatically count the number of rotations without any electronics. In order to be successful at the game a child will have to be able to rotate one foot while simultaneously hopping on the other foot. The game, therefore, will aid in the development of better coordination for children. The automatic counter in the toy adds to the fun and competition of the game. <br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> This device was a hollow hoop which contained a weight on the interior of it. The interior weight was able to rotate throughout the hoop when the hoop was rotated rhythmically. The hoop was capable of counting the weights number of rotations as well as determining its speed. The device, created by Muller-Deinhardt, was an improvement on a previous exercise device in which a hollow hoop had a small weight which circulated throughout the inside in order to allow the wearer to rotate the hoop around their body. The previous hoop, made popular as the Hula Hoop, required the wearer to rotate their hips rhythmically in order to perpetuate the motion of the hoop and keep it from falling off of their body. The use of this prior art aided one by providing a cardiovascular workout, improving physical strength and increasing muscle tone and coordination. The new invention allows the user to complete this exercise but have a quantitative measure of their progress. The new invention automatically counts the number of rotations and uses sensors to determine and display the speed of the weight inside the hoop. The additions allow the wearer to quantitatively measure their performance with the hoop and help to maintain interest in the activity. Adding these measurements provides motivation to continually improve and thus increase the duration and intensity of their workout. The invention has a weight within the hollow hoop that rotates throughout while the hoop is rhythmically rotated. There is a counter which records each pass of the weight to allow the wearing to quickly see the number of rotations completed. The counter can be a mechanical device, an electronic counter, or a photosensitive counter. The speed sensor is a set of sensors a predetermined distance apart which use a time signal to determine the speed the weight is traveling at. The patent is not specific on the method for either the counter or the sensor. <br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> This invention is a device for amusement with two circles connected in a coplanar fashion. The two rings’ diameter’s range from 8 to 24 inches. They allow a user to wear one ring on their ankle and rotate in a circular fashion. This motion will result in the second circle completed an arc around the wearer’s ankle. This rotation will force the wearer to hop on the opposing foot during each rotation to allow for continual rotation of the device. In another form this invention has three rings, instead of two, to allow for a wider range of bodily motions and exercise patterns which may be employed to use the device. The device uses a series of plastic bumps to keep the ring from sitting directly on the floor. This slight variation allows the user to put the ring on their foot by simply putting it under the ring, thus eliminating the need to bend down and put it over their foot. This device aims to add a level of amusement to exercise which will keep the user interested and enjoying themselves. In this manner the user will get a full workout and adequately tone their muscles. This device aims to capitalize on the fact that amusement devices which allow the user to exercise (such as hula-hoops or jump ropes) allow the user to work out for an extended period of time because the entertainment function is the user’s primary use of it and exercise becomes secondary. This device tries to extend this pattern to a device which would allow the user to increase coordination and agility by focusing on use with the feet. The patent claims that there are few entertaining devices which aim to strengthen foot and ankle muscles. The device consists of two connected circles as well as bosses to elevate the rings. The bosses are smooth so as to prevent irritation and minimize injury when the bosses contact the user’s foot. The three ring variation also suggests a different diameter for one of the three rings to allow for more ways to use the device. The device is similar to a hula-hoop for the foot. It requires the wearer to rotate with one leg and use centrifugal force to maintain the circular motion of the device. Additionally, the user must hop the other foot during each rotation to allow the device to continue on its circular path.<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> When looking at the Skip-It patent when compared with 2 of its referenced patents it is clear it is a combination of other inventions. However, there are aspects to the design which would prove it to be a valid patent in light of the cases. In the case of the A&amp;P Tea case it is clear that in order for a patent to be valid it must be more than a simple combination of old inventions. The case states that an invention must improve upon previous designs instead of just combine them. The Skip-It device is a combination of ideas but it also improves on these ideas. It incorporates the idea of a rotation counter in the hula hoop as well as the idea from the hooped amusement device. Hoewever, the rotation counter is of a different and new design. The device is also different from the hooped amusement device because it uses a drum at the end of a rod for weight as opposed to an unnecessary second ring. The device is different from previous ones and improves upon the devices it incorporates. This improvement makes the patent valid under the A&amp;P case.<br /> As seen in the Lyons case a patent must also be nonobvious to a person skilled in the area. This is to say that a person of ordinary skill in the inventions field could not immediately obvious to create. In the Lyons case the court discusses that advancements in a field are grounds for a patent. This aspect to the design is harder proving, however, I believe the patent satisfies this requirement as well. While the gear system which results in the counting mechanism is a simple mechanism, it would not be obvious. The designers were innovative in designing a gear system which would use the rotations of a drum to determine the number of rotations the whole device makes. This system was a new and advanced way to use the hooped amusement device. Despite the mechanism’s simplicity, I would say that it was nonobvious based on the creativity and knowledge needed to design it. It would not be immediately obvious to someone that the way to count rotations of the hooped amusement device would be to change the design to a drum and count the drums rotations using a series of gears. The Skip-It improves on the hooped amusement device, which advances the field of rotating ankle exercises. <br /> <br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness==<br /> The Skip-It device satisfied the nonobvious requirement for patent application. The game of rotating a device around one’s ankle and hopping over it during each device alone would not be nonobvious. However, someone skilled would not immediately determine the method to have the device automatically count the rotations. The method of turning gears paired with the rubber ring to count rotations is unique and inventive. It would not be immediately obvious that one could use the rotations of a drum to incite gear rotation inside of it to turn a counter after a predetermined number of drum rotations. Because this is not immediately clear it satisfies the nonobvious requirement.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion==<br /> My chosen patent satisfies the criteria for nonobviousness, novelty and utility. Because of this it is clear that it remains valid as a patent. The patent, while using similar ideas from the other patents discussed, clearly improves upon previous design. Additionally, it required design of the internal gear system to count the rotations. It has a clear purpose as both a toy and form of exercise. The invention improves on both previous advances from both a business and scientific standpoint and stimulates growth in science and technology. The patent would satisfy the combination criteria of the Hotchkiss case because it improves the design with the combination. Additionally, the new gear device for counting rotations would satisfy the nonobvious criteria under the Lyons case. Despite the changes in patent law over the years, my opinion is that this patent would hold up in court today as valid due to the previously stated reasons.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1488 2011-01-28T03:29:28Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> The patent I chose is the toy which became well known as “Skip-It.” The toy, invented and sold by Tiger Electronics, was rotated around a child’s ankle in a circular path and counted the successive number of rotations the toy made. The ability to rotate an extremity in a circular path to rotate an object (such as a Hula Hoop) created a fun test of dexterity. A game designed to test one’s ability to rotate such an object will not only provide amusement but also help to improve coordination and muscle stamina. Any game of this type would be improved greatly by not needing to count the repetitions oneself. The solution to this is to create a toy which can rotate around a child’s hand or foot and count the number of rotations completed. The toy which Tiger Electronics came up with was one which would rotate horizontally, in a circular path, around the wearer’s ankle. They came up with a design which would require the wearer to rotate the toy with one leg while jumping over the toy with the other leg upon each rotation. The additional requirement of the jump made the game exponentially more challenging. If one is able to continually play they could physically benefit from the active game. The toy consists of a ring which is worn on the player’s ankle, a ball with the counting mechanism enclosed in it, and a plastic rod which connects the two. The ball weights the toy at the end to enhance the ability to rotate the toy. Enclosed in the ball is the gear set which is used to count the rotations. As the drum revolves during play the intermeshing gears rotate relative to each other. On the outer surface of the drum is a rubber ring. This ring allows for the reduction of noise and contact with most household surfaces without damage. Additionally, then a player beings rotating their foot in a circular motion the drum will begin to rotate relative to the foot. The rubber ring, when contacting the floor, will cause the drum to rotate relative to the wearer’s foot. This rotation will then enact the intermeshing gears. After a predetermined number of drum rotations the gears will have rotated enough to turn the counter to the next successive number. This allows the toy to automatically count the number of rotations without any electronics. In order to be successful at the game a child will have to be able to rotate one foot while simultaneously hopping on the other foot. The game, therefore, will aid in the development of better coordination for children. The automatic counter in the toy adds to the fun and competition of the game. <br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> This device was a hollow hoop which contained a weight on the interior of it. The interior weight was able to rotate throughout the hoop when the hoop was rotated rhythmically. The hoop was capable of counting the weights number of rotations as well as determining its speed. The device, created by Muller-Deinhardt, was an improvement on a previous exercise device in which a hollow hoop had a small weight which circulated throughout the inside in order to allow the wearer to rotate the hoop around their body. The previous hoop, made popular as the Hula Hoop, required the wearer to rotate their hips rhythmically in order to perpetuate the motion of the hoop and keep it from falling off of their body. The use of this prior art aided one by providing a cardiovascular workout, improving physical strength and increasing muscle tone and coordination. The new invention allows the user to complete this exercise but have a quantitative measure of their progress. The new invention automatically counts the number of rotations and uses sensors to determine and display the speed of the weight inside the hoop. The additions allow the wearer to quantitatively measure their performance with the hoop and help to maintain interest in the activity. Adding these measurements provides motivation to continually improve and thus increase the duration and intensity of their workout. The invention has a weight within the hollow hoop that rotates throughout while the hoop is rhythmically rotated. There is a counter which records each pass of the weight to allow the wearing to quickly see the number of rotations completed. The counter can be a mechanical device, an electronic counter, or a photosensitive counter. The speed sensor is a set of sensors a predetermined distance apart which use a time signal to determine the speed the weight is traveling at. The patent is not specific on the method for either the counter or the sensor. <br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> This invention is a device for amusement with two circles connected in a coplanar fashion. The two rings’ diameter’s range from 8 to 24 inches. They allow a user to wear one ring on their ankle and rotate in a circular fashion. This motion will result in the second circle completed an arc around the wearer’s ankle. This rotation will force the wearer to hop on the opposing foot during each rotation to allow for continual rotation of the device. In another form this invention has three rings, instead of two, to allow for a wider range of bodily motions and exercise patterns which may be employed to use the device. The device uses a series of plastic bumps to keep the ring from sitting directly on the floor. This slight variation allows the user to put the ring on their foot by simply putting it under the ring, thus eliminating the need to bend down and put it over their foot. This device aims to add a level of amusement to exercise which will keep the user interested and enjoying themselves. In this manner the user will get a full workout and adequately tone their muscles. This device aims to capitalize on the fact that amusement devices which allow the user to exercise (such as hula-hoops or jump ropes) allow the user to work out for an extended period of time because the entertainment function is the user’s primary use of it and exercise becomes secondary. This device tries to extend this pattern to a device which would allow the user to increase coordination and agility by focusing on use with the feet. The patent claims that there are few entertaining devices which aim to strengthen foot and ankle muscles. The device consists of two connected circles as well as bosses to elevate the rings. The bosses are smooth so as to prevent irritation and minimize injury when the bosses contact the user’s foot. The three ring variation also suggests a different diameter for one of the three rings to allow for more ways to use the device. The device is similar to a hula-hoop for the foot. It requires the wearer to rotate with one leg and use centrifugal force to maintain the circular motion of the device. Additionally, the user must hop the other foot during each rotation to allow the device to continue on its circular path.<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ===Hotchkiss and A&amp;P===<br /> ===Lyons===<br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness==<br /> The Skip-It device satisfied the nonobvious requirement for patent application. The game of rotating a device around one’s ankle and hopping over it during each device alone would not be nonobvious. However, someone skilled would not immediately determine the method to have the device automatically count the rotations. The method of turning gears paired with the rubber ring to count rotations is unique and inventive. It would not be immediately obvious that one could use the rotations of a drum to incite gear rotation inside of it to turn a counter after a predetermined number of drum rotations. Because this is not immediately clear it satisfies the nonobvious requirement.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion==<br /> My chosen patent satisfies the criteria for nonobviousness, novelty and utility. Because of this it is clear that it remains valid as a patent. The patent, while using similar ideas from the other patents discussed, clearly improves upon previous design. Additionally, it required design of the internal gear system to count the rotations. It has a clear purpose as both a toy and form of exercise. The invention improves on both previous advances from both a business and scientific standpoint and stimulates growth in science and technology. The patent would satisfy the combination criteria of the Hotchkiss case because it improves the design with the combination. Additionally, the new gear device for counting rotations would satisfy the nonobvious criteria under the Lyons case. Despite the changes in patent law over the years, my opinion is that this patent would hold up in court today as valid due to the previously stated reasons.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1485 2011-01-28T03:18:01Z

<p>Snooki: /* Conclusion */</p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> The patent I chose is the toy which became well known as “Skip-It.” The toy, invented and sold by Tiger Electronics, was rotated around a child’s ankle in a circular path and counted the successive number of rotations the toy made. The ability to rotate an extremity in a circular path to rotate an object (such as a Hula Hoop) created a fun test of dexterity. A game designed to test one’s ability to rotate such an object will not only provide amusement but also help to improve coordination and muscle stamina. Any game of this type would be improved greatly by not needing to count the repetitions oneself. The solution to this is to create a toy which can rotate around a child’s hand or foot and count the number of rotations completed. The toy which Tiger Electronics came up with was one which would rotate horizontally, in a circular path, around the wearer’s ankle. They came up with a design which would require the wearer to rotate the toy with one leg while jumping over the toy with the other leg upon each rotation. The additional requirement of the jump made the game exponentially more challenging. If one is able to continually play they could physically benefit from the active game. The toy consists of a ring which is worn on the player’s ankle, a ball with the counting mechanism enclosed in it, and a plastic rod which connects the two. The ball weights the toy at the end to enhance the ability to rotate the toy. Enclosed in the ball is the gear set which is used to count the rotations. As the drum revolves during play the intermeshing gears rotate relative to each other. On the outer surface of the drum is a rubber ring. This ring allows for the reduction of noise and contact with most household surfaces without damage. Additionally, then a player beings rotating their foot in a circular motion the drum will begin to rotate relative to the foot. The rubber ring, when contacting the floor, will cause the drum to rotate relative to the wearer’s foot. This rotation will then enact the intermeshing gears. After a predetermined number of drum rotations the gears will have rotated enough to turn the counter to the next successive number. This allows the toy to automatically count the number of rotations without any electronics. In order to be successful at the game a child will have to be able to rotate one foot while simultaneously hopping on the other foot. The game, therefore, will aid in the development of better coordination for children. The automatic counter in the toy adds to the fun and competition of the game. <br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> This device was a hollow hoop which contained a weight on the interior of it. The interior weight was able to rotate throughout the hoop when the hoop was rotated rhythmically. The hoop was capable of counting the weights number of rotations as well as determining its speed. The device, created by Muller-Deinhardt, was an improvement on a previous exercise device in which a hollow hoop had a small weight which circulated throughout the inside in order to allow the wearer to rotate the hoop around their body. The previous hoop, made popular as the Hula Hoop, required the wearer to rotate their hips rhythmically in order to perpetuate the motion of the hoop and keep it from falling off of their body. The use of this prior art aided one by providing a cardiovascular workout, improving physical strength and increasing muscle tone and coordination. The new invention allows the user to complete this exercise but have a quantitative measure of their progress. The new invention automatically counts the number of rotations and uses sensors to determine and display the speed of the weight inside the hoop. The additions allow the wearer to quantitatively measure their performance with the hoop and help to maintain interest in the activity. Adding these measurements provides motivation to continually improve and thus increase the duration and intensity of their workout. The invention has a weight within the hollow hoop that rotates throughout while the hoop is rhythmically rotated. There is a counter which records each pass of the weight to allow the wearing to quickly see the number of rotations completed. The counter can be a mechanical device, an electronic counter, or a photosensitive counter. The speed sensor is a set of sensors a predetermined distance apart which use a time signal to determine the speed the weight is traveling at. The patent is not specific on the method for either the counter or the sensor. <br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> This invention is a device for amusement with two circles connected in a coplanar fashion. The two rings’ diameter’s range from 8 to 24 inches. They allow a user to wear one ring on their ankle and rotate in a circular fashion. This motion will result in the second circle completed an arc around the wearer’s ankle. This rotation will force the wearer to hop on the opposing foot during each rotation to allow for continual rotation of the device. In another form this invention has three rings, instead of two, to allow for a wider range of bodily motions and exercise patterns which may be employed to use the device. The device uses a series of plastic bumps to keep the ring from sitting directly on the floor. This slight variation allows the user to put the ring on their foot by simply putting it under the ring, thus eliminating the need to bend down and put it over their foot. This device aims to add a level of amusement to exercise which will keep the user interested and enjoying themselves. In this manner the user will get a full workout and adequately tone their muscles. This device aims to capitalize on the fact that amusement devices which allow the user to exercise (such as hula-hoops or jump ropes) allow the user to work out for an extended period of time because the entertainment function is the user’s primary use of it and exercise becomes secondary. This device tries to extend this pattern to a device which would allow the user to increase coordination and agility by focusing on use with the feet. The patent claims that there are few entertaining devices which aim to strengthen foot and ankle muscles. The device consists of two connected circles as well as bosses to elevate the rings. The bosses are smooth so as to prevent irritation and minimize injury when the bosses contact the user’s foot. The three ring variation also suggests a different diameter for one of the three rings to allow for more ways to use the device. The device is similar to a hula-hoop for the foot. It requires the wearer to rotate with one leg and use centrifugal force to maintain the circular motion of the device. Additionally, the user must hop the other foot during each rotation to allow the device to continue on its circular path.<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ===Hotchkiss and A&amp;P===<br /> ===Lyons===<br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness==<br /> The Skip-It device satisfied the nonobvious requirement for patent application. The game of rotating a device around one’s ankle and hopping over it during each device alone would not be nonobvious. However, the average ‘mechanic’ would not immediately determine the method to have the device automatically count the rotations. The method of turning gears paired with the rubber ring to count rotations is unique and inventive. It would not be immediately obvious that one could use the rotations of a drum to incite gear rotation inside of it to turn a counter after a predetermined number of drum rotations. Because this is not immediately clear it satisfies the nonobvious requirement.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion==<br /> My chosen patent satisfies the criteria for nonobviousness, novelty and utility. Because of this it is clear that it remains valid as a patent. The patent, while using similar ideas from the other patents discussed, clearly improves upon previous design. Additionally, it required design of the internal gear system to count the rotations. It has a clear purpose as both a toy and form of exercise. The invention improves on both previous advances from both a business and scientific standpoint and stimulates growth in science and technology. The patent would satisfy the combination criteria of the Hotchkiss case because it improves the design with the combination. Additionally, the new gear device for counting rotations would satisfy the nonobvious criteria under the Lyons case. Despite the changes in patent law over the years, my opinion is that this patent would hold up in court today as valid due to the previously stated reasons.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1483 2011-01-28T03:10:47Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> The patent I chose is the toy which became well known as “Skip-It.” The toy, invented and sold by Tiger Electronics, was rotated around a child’s ankle in a circular path and counted the successive number of rotations the toy made. The ability to rotate an extremity in a circular path to rotate an object (such as a Hula Hoop) created a fun test of dexterity. A game designed to test one’s ability to rotate such an object will not only provide amusement but also help to improve coordination and muscle stamina. Any game of this type would be improved greatly by not needing to count the repetitions oneself. The solution to this is to create a toy which can rotate around a child’s hand or foot and count the number of rotations completed. The toy which Tiger Electronics came up with was one which would rotate horizontally, in a circular path, around the wearer’s ankle. They came up with a design which would require the wearer to rotate the toy with one leg while jumping over the toy with the other leg upon each rotation. The additional requirement of the jump made the game exponentially more challenging. If one is able to continually play they could physically benefit from the active game. The toy consists of a ring which is worn on the player’s ankle, a ball with the counting mechanism enclosed in it, and a plastic rod which connects the two. The ball weights the toy at the end to enhance the ability to rotate the toy. Enclosed in the ball is the gear set which is used to count the rotations. As the drum revolves during play the intermeshing gears rotate relative to each other. On the outer surface of the drum is a rubber ring. This ring allows for the reduction of noise and contact with most household surfaces without damage. Additionally, then a player beings rotating their foot in a circular motion the drum will begin to rotate relative to the foot. The rubber ring, when contacting the floor, will cause the drum to rotate relative to the wearer’s foot. This rotation will then enact the intermeshing gears. After a predetermined number of drum rotations the gears will have rotated enough to turn the counter to the next successive number. This allows the toy to automatically count the number of rotations without any electronics. In order to be successful at the game a child will have to be able to rotate one foot while simultaneously hopping on the other foot. The game, therefore, will aid in the development of better coordination for children. The automatic counter in the toy adds to the fun and competition of the game. <br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> This device was a hollow hoop which contained a weight on the interior of it. The interior weight was able to rotate throughout the hoop when the hoop was rotated rhythmically. The hoop was capable of counting the weights number of rotations as well as determining its speed. The device, created by Muller-Deinhardt, was an improvement on a previous exercise device in which a hollow hoop had a small weight which circulated throughout the inside in order to allow the wearer to rotate the hoop around their body. The previous hoop, made popular as the Hula Hoop, required the wearer to rotate their hips rhythmically in order to perpetuate the motion of the hoop and keep it from falling off of their body. The use of this prior art aided one by providing a cardiovascular workout, improving physical strength and increasing muscle tone and coordination. The new invention allows the user to complete this exercise but have a quantitative measure of their progress. The new invention automatically counts the number of rotations and uses sensors to determine and display the speed of the weight inside the hoop. The additions allow the wearer to quantitatively measure their performance with the hoop and help to maintain interest in the activity. Adding these measurements provides motivation to continually improve and thus increase the duration and intensity of their workout. The invention has a weight within the hollow hoop that rotates throughout while the hoop is rhythmically rotated. There is a counter which records each pass of the weight to allow the wearing to quickly see the number of rotations completed. The counter can be a mechanical device, an electronic counter, or a photosensitive counter. The speed sensor is a set of sensors a predetermined distance apart which use a time signal to determine the speed the weight is traveling at. The patent is not specific on the method for either the counter or the sensor. <br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> This invention is a device for amusement with two circles connected in a coplanar fashion. The two rings’ diameter’s range from 8 to 24 inches. They allow a user to wear one ring on their ankle and rotate in a circular fashion. This motion will result in the second circle completed an arc around the wearer’s ankle. This rotation will force the wearer to hop on the opposing foot during each rotation to allow for continual rotation of the device. In another form this invention has three rings, instead of two, to allow for a wider range of bodily motions and exercise patterns which may be employed to use the device. The device uses a series of plastic bumps to keep the ring from sitting directly on the floor. This slight variation allows the user to put the ring on their foot by simply putting it under the ring, thus eliminating the need to bend down and put it over their foot. This device aims to add a level of amusement to exercise which will keep the user interested and enjoying themselves. In this manner the user will get a full workout and adequately tone their muscles. This device aims to capitalize on the fact that amusement devices which allow the user to exercise (such as hula-hoops or jump ropes) allow the user to work out for an extended period of time because the entertainment function is the user’s primary use of it and exercise becomes secondary. This device tries to extend this pattern to a device which would allow the user to increase coordination and agility by focusing on use with the feet. The patent claims that there are few entertaining devices which aim to strengthen foot and ankle muscles. The device consists of two connected circles as well as bosses to elevate the rings. The bosses are smooth so as to prevent irritation and minimize injury when the bosses contact the user’s foot. The three ring variation also suggests a different diameter for one of the three rings to allow for more ways to use the device. The device is similar to a hula-hoop for the foot. It requires the wearer to rotate with one leg and use centrifugal force to maintain the circular motion of the device. Additionally, the user must hop the other foot during each rotation to allow the device to continue on its circular path.<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ===Hotchkiss and A&amp;P===<br /> ===Lyons===<br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness==<br /> The Skip-It device satisfied the nonobvious requirement for patent application. The game of rotating a device around one’s ankle and hopping over it during each device alone would not be nonobvious. However, the average ‘mechanic’ would not immediately determine the method to have the device automatically count the rotations. The method of turning gears paired with the rubber ring to count rotations is unique and inventive. It would not be immediately obvious that one could use the rotations of a drum to incite gear rotation inside of it to turn a counter after a predetermined number of drum rotations. Because this is not immediately clear it satisfies the nonobvious requirement.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion==<br /> My chosen patent satisfies the criteria for both nonobviousness and novelty. Because of this it is clear that it remains valid as a patent. The patent, while using similar ideas from the other patents discussed, clearly improves upon previous design. Additionally, it required design of the internal gear system to count the rotations. It has a clear purpose as both a toy and form of exercise. The invention improves on both previous advances from both a business and scientific standpoint and stimulates growth in science and technology. The patent would satisfy the combination criteria of the Hotchkiss case because it improves the design with the combination. Additionally, the new gear device for counting rotations would satisfy the nonobvious criteria under the Lyons case. Despite the changes in patent law over the years, my opinion is that this patent would hold up in court today as valid due to the previously stated reasons.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1477 2011-01-28T02:57:08Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> The patent I chose is the toy which became well known as “Skip-It.” The toy, invented and sold by Tiger Electronics, was rotated around a child’s ankle in a circular path and counted the successive number of rotations the toy made. The ability to rotate an extremity in a circular path to rotate an object (such as a Hula Hoop) created a fun test of dexterity. A game designed to test one’s ability to rotate such an object will not only provide amusement but also help to improve coordination and muscle stamina. Any game of this type would be improved greatly by not needing to count the repetitions oneself. The solution to this is to create a toy which can rotate around a child’s hand or foot and count the number of rotations completed. The toy which Tiger Electronics came up with was one which would rotate horizontally, in a circular path, around the wearer’s ankle. They came up with a design which would require the wearer to rotate the toy with one leg while jumping over the toy with the other leg upon each rotation. The additional requirement of the jump made the game exponentially more challenging. If one is able to continually play they could physically benefit from the active game. The toy consists of a ring which is worn on the player’s ankle, a ball with the counting mechanism enclosed in it, and a plastic rod which connects the two. The ball weights the toy at the end to enhance the ability to rotate the toy. Enclosed in the ball is the gear set which is used to count the rotations. As the drum revolves during play the intermeshing gears rotate relative to each other. On the outer surface of the drum is a rubber ring. This ring allows for the reduction of noise and contact with most household surfaces without damage. Additionally, then a player beings rotating their foot in a circular motion the drum will begin to rotate relative to the foot. The rubber ring, when contacting the floor, will cause the drum to rotate relative to the wearer’s foot. This rotation will then enact the intermeshing gears. After a predetermined number of drum rotations the gears will have rotated enough to turn the counter to the next successive number. This allows the toy to automatically count the number of rotations without any electronics. In order to be successful at the game a child will have to be able to rotate one foot while simultaneously hopping on the other foot. The game, therefore, will aid in the development of better coordination for children. The automatic counter in the toy adds to the fun and competition of the game. <br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> This device was a hollow hoop which contained a weight on the interior of it. The interior weight was able to rotate throughout the hoop when the hoop was rotated rhythmically. The hoop was capable of counting the weights number of rotations as well as determining its speed. The device, created by Muller-Deinhardt, was an improvement on a previous exercise device in which a hollow hoop had a small weight which circulated throughout the inside in order to allow the wearer to rotate the hoop around their body. The previous hoop, made popular as the Hula Hoop, required the wearer to rotate their hips rhythmically in order to perpetuate the motion of the hoop and keep it from falling off of their body. The use of this prior art aided one by providing a cardiovascular workout, improving physical strength and increasing muscle tone and coordination. The new invention allows the user to complete this exercise but have a quantitative measure of their progress. The new invention automatically counts the number of rotations and uses sensors to determine and display the speed of the weight inside the hoop. The additions allow the wearer to quantitatively measure their performance with the hoop and help to maintain interest in the activity. Adding these measurements provides motivation to continually improve and thus increase the duration and intensity of their workout. The invention has a weight within the hollow hoop that rotates throughout while the hoop is rhythmically rotated. There is a counter which records each pass of the weight to allow the wearing to quickly see the number of rotations completed. The counter can be a mechanical device, an electronic counter, or a photosensitive counter. The speed sensor is a set of sensors a predetermined distance apart which use a time signal to determine the speed the weight is traveling at. The patent is not specific on the method for either the counter or the sensor. <br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> This invention is a device for amusement with two circles connected in a coplanar fashion. The two rings’ diameter’s range from 8 to 24 inches. They allow a user to wear one ring on their ankle and rotate in a circular fashion. This motion will result in the second circle completed an arc around the wearer’s ankle. This rotation will force the wearer to hop on the opposing foot during each rotation to allow for continual rotation of the device. In another form this invention has three rings, instead of two, to allow for a wider range of bodily motions and exercise patterns which may be employed to use the device. The device uses a series of plastic bumps to keep the ring from sitting directly on the floor. This slight variation allows the user to put the ring on their foot by simply putting it under the ring, thus eliminating the need to bend down and put it over their foot. This device aims to add a level of amusement to exercise which will keep the user interested and enjoying themselves. In this manner the user will get a full workout and adequately tone their muscles. This device aims to capitalize on the fact that amusement devices which allow the user to exercise (such as hula-hoops or jump ropes) allow the user to work out for an extended period of time because the entertainment function is the user’s primary use of it and exercise becomes secondary. This device tries to extend this pattern to a device which would allow the user to increase coordination and agility by focusing on use with the feet. The patent claims that there are few entertaining devices which aim to strengthen foot and ankle muscles. The device consists of two connected circles as well as bosses to elevate the rings. The bosses are smooth so as to prevent irritation and minimize injury when the bosses contact the user’s foot. The three ring variation also suggests a different diameter for one of the three rings to allow for more ways to use the device. The device is similar to a hula-hoop for the foot. It requires the wearer to rotate with one leg and use centrifugal force to maintain the circular motion of the device. Additionally, the user must hop the other foot during each rotation to allow the device to continue on its circular path.<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ===Hotchkiss and A&amp;P===<br /> ===Lyons===<br /> <br /> ==Nonobviousness==<br /> The Skip-It device satisfied the nonobvious requirement for patent application. The game of rotating a device around one’s ankle and hopping over it during each device alone would not be nonobvious. However, the average ‘mechanic’ would not immediately determine the method to have the device automatically count the rotations. The method of turning gears paired with the rubber ring to count rotations is unique and inventive. It would not be immediately obvious that one could use the rotations of a drum to incite gear rotation inside of it to turn a counter after a predetermined number of drum rotations. Because this is not immediately clear it satisfies the nonobvious requirement.<br /> <br /> ==Conclusion==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1363 2011-01-27T21:02:09Z

<p>Snooki: /* Analysis */</p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ===Hotchkiss and A&amp;P===<br /> ===Lyons===<br /> <br /> ==The Evolution of Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1362 2011-01-27T21:01:36Z

<p>Snooki: /* Description */</p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> ===My Patent===<br /> ===Exercise Hoop Having a Counter===<br /> ===Hooped Amusement Device===<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ==The Evolution of Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1361 2011-01-27T20:57:26Z

<p>Snooki: /* Background */</p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Description==<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ==The Evolution of Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1360 2011-01-27T20:56:35Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Background==<br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ==The Evolution of Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1359 2011-01-27T20:56:03Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Background==<br /> ==Analysis==<br /> ==The Evolution of Nonobviousness==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1358 2011-01-27T20:54:37Z

<p>Snooki: /* Patents Cited */</p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [http://www.google.com/patents?id=wpg9AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [http://www.google.com/patents?id=jAY4AAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false]<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1357 2011-01-27T20:53:03Z

<p>Snooki: /* Assignment */</p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.<br /> <br /> ==Patents Cited==<br /> *Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter<br /> **Date issued: Nov 6, 1984<br /> *Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device<br /> **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988<br /> <br /> ==Analysis==</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_due_1/28/11&diff=1356 2011-01-27T20:50:08Z

<p>Snooki: Created page with &quot;==Assignment== Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>==Assignment==<br /> Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&amp;P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=1355 2011-01-27T20:01:23Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> [[Homework due 1/28/11]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=1354 2011-01-27T20:00:47Z

<p>Snooki: /* My Homeworks */</p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> [[Snooki's Homework 1]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=1353 2011-01-27T19:59:49Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].<br /> <br /> ==My Homeworks==<br /> [[Homework 1]]</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=947 2011-01-24T03:14:20Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring (which the player wears on their foot), a ball (which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations), and a plastic rod which connects the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which was popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time and consider the originality of each. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].</div>

Snooki https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=User:Snooki&diff=945 2011-01-24T03:11:06Z

<p>Snooki: </p> <hr /> <div>==My Selected US Patent==<br /> *Patent 4875675: Skipping toy and method of playing same<br /> **Date issued: October 24, 1989<br /> *The idea behind this invention was to create a children’s game in which a toy, attached to a child’s ankle, is rotated in a horizontal and circular path. The invention counts the number of full rotations the toy completes around the player. In order to be successful at rotating the toy the child must jump the non-playing foot each time the toy passes. The toy consists of a ring which the player wears on their foot, a ball which weights the end of the toy and counts the rotations, and a plastic rod connecting the two. I found this patent interesting because it was a toy which because popular while I was young and is a unique idea for a toy. I think it will be fascinating to consider other children’s toys invented around the same time. The patent can be found on Google Patents: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=1AEtAAAAEBAJ&amp;printsec=abstract&amp;zoom=4&amp;source=gbs_overview_r&amp;cad=0#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false].</div>

Snooki