Homework 6 (due Wednesday 23)~jnosal

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


In the case that reached the US Court of Appeals, Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters Inc., Bruckelmyer had developed a means for heating the ground just before cement was laid over it. Thirteen years prior to this invention, a Canadian patent was issued that outlined the same concept using the same techniques. When Bruckelmyer claimed that Ground Heaters was infringing on his patent, they brought up the Canadian case and claimed that his patent was invalid. This claim rested on the fact that there was a printed publication of the Canadian invention that was open to the public thirteen years before Bruckelmyers patent. Bruckelmyer claimed that the printed documents were not conclusive enough to have a complete understanding of the invention but it was decided that since the drawings, required for concept explanation, were easily found from the process patent document itself, the patent was invalid. The main concept in the case was, that an ordinary skilled person must be able to find the patent, and from it, gain a complete knowledge and understanding of the design. This means that the skilled worker could replicate the design strictly using the guidelines of the printed source. Since this was the case with regards to the prior art the patent was affirmed invalid.