A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., 340 U.S. 147(1950) analysis

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

3 patents appear to be infringed upon:

cashiers counter equipped qith 3 sided frame with no top or bottom which is push or pulled, has item deposited in by customers and checked bay a clerk then returned top improve time and reduce costs.

each element was known, but court decide the combination to conceive a bottomless self unloading counter tray is novel and useful.

Invention is substantiated by evidence only in extension of the counter.

Plaintiffs challenge whether courtss had right to do so.

1. Extension is not mentioned in claims

2. Were this disclosed, not be invention. Dimensional changes does not validate ingenuity.

3. If extension were the only improvement, the claim included other elements.

The court has never given a clear basis for combination patents. require a test. In Lincoln Engineering co. o Ill v Stewart warner Corp. " the mere aggreation of olp marts to perform no new function is not patentable. Must be an unusual or suprising consequence, or gain legitimacy from a severe test.

the store counter had done what it always has done. supports groceries, 3 sided rack draw and pushes goods , guide rails prevent sliding off. 2 + 2 =4

Cpmmercial success and satisfying a want do not = patentability. All elements known to prior art.

Judgment reversed.

Justice Douglas- concurred by Justice Black

Patents promote progress of science. Gadgets are not progress. Granting monopoly on such an idea promotes schemers ot obstruct advancement by only improving not inventing. there is not enough creativity in this device