1/28/11 Homework: Analyzing My Patent (kyergler)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Related Patents

1) Powered Barrow or Cart [1], issued December 1959

This reference is described with two figures and drawings that resemble a three-wheeled system with a rotating front wheel, and two powered rear wheels. The patent also includes a barrow bed that rotates along an axis parallel to and shortly above the front wheel.

2) Self-Propelled Earth Moving Device [2], issued June 1975

This reference is extremely similar to the motorized wheelbarrow patent that I researched initially, with the only noticeable and considerable differences being the exclusion of outdoor traction tires, and the exclusion of a rotating barrow bed for easy dumping of material.


Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

Considering the way Hotchkiss' patent for a clay/porcelain knob was deemed invalid, my patent for a motorized wheelbarrow would also be invalid. Referencing the two resources listed above, the proposed idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious one. Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires. The general idea stayed the same. The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself.

A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.

With respect to the A. & P patent case, my motorized wheelbarrow patent was is not a scientific breakthrough, nor an economically valid idea to be considered a patent. It was more of an extension to the previous patent of a self-propelled earth mover, similar to the "counter extension" understanding of the A. & P. case.

Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb

However, if one is to consider the novelty and non-obviousness of my patent to be valid, there is still a "public domain" boundary to approach. The "Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb" case brought about the issue of validity after public release and sale. I do not know enough about my patent to see if knowledge about public sale was released, but I suppose that since there have been multiple patents issued for different versions of motorized wheelbarrows that the definition of public use and sale is very hard to research and prove.

It was surprising to see how many motorized wheelbarrow patents that have been issued, when the main difference between all of them were the drive train of the motor. If I were to analyze any of the recent patents with respect to requirement code 35 USC 103, I would deem many of them as prior and obvious art. Section (a) of the US code states " 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." If the manufacturing process of the motorized wheelbarrow was included in my patent, it would be significantly more valid than how it was actually stated. The final product is a non-obvious item, it is a result of combining a motor and a wheelbarrow bed in an obvious manner.