Josh Bradley's Homework

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Due Monday, January 24

  • Patent 4272847, Baseball player's chest protector
    • Issued on June 16, 1981
  • The idea behind this invention was to improve on the existing chest protector (US Patent No. 3574861, Apr 1971[1]) used by catchers in baseball. The invention is a lightweight baseball catcher's chest protector that permits circulation of air to the user's body, does not absorb perspiration even after prolonged useage, has a minimum restrictive action on the movement of the user, and minimizes the tendency of a missed baseball that strikes the chest protector to bounce in an unpredictable direction. It uses foam to deaden the impact of the ball better than its predecessors. I found this patent interesting because baseball has been a big part of my life, as a player and a fan. This was the first modern chest protector that led to the ones used in Major League Baseball today, and is also referenced in patents for modern chest protectors in other sports, like football and hockey. I found this patent while searching on "Patentstorm" and the link can be found here: [2]. It is also available on Google patents: [3].

Due Friday, January 28

Analysis of the Non-Obviousness of 4272947, described in homework due Monday, January 24.

Due Friday, February 4

Arguments for Obviousness and Non-Obviousness (JWB) for U.S. Patent No. 2,627,798.

Due Wednesday, February 7

Summary of all NONOBVIOUSNESS (JWB) cases discussed, including analysis of the development of non-obviousness laws.

Non-Obviousness paper – average 43.3/65

  • Handbook – 10 (average 7)
    • 7 for a reasonable handbook
    • 3 for analysis/synthesis
  • Policy (why the law is the way it is) – 20 (average 11.3)
    • 10 points for summary
    • 10 for evaluation/analysis
  • History – 20 (average 14)
    • 15 for listing of cases and holdings
    • 5 for tracking evolution and placing cases in context (compare and contrast cases)
  • New Proposal – 20 (average 11)
    • 10 points for justifying anything
    • 5 for truly new standard, 5 more for good justification consistent with precedent

Due Wednesday, March 23

Hazani v. International Trade Commission (JWB):a wiki page with a one-paragraph description of the facts of the case and the holding.