User:Charles R Talley/Homework Assignments/hw0128

Snowboard Binding (Patent # 4973073)

• References Cited:
  • Patent No. 4652007
  • Patent No. 4741550

Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

This case has been brought before the United States Supreme Court to determine if the jury instructions delivered in district court were erroneous and cause for a new trial. The plaintiff's counsel requested the jury be instructed in a manner that connoted that the patent should be validated. Instead the jury was instructed with the insinuation that the plaintiff was not entitled to a patent or a verdict for that matter, since the patent in question lacked the true spirit of invention. In keeping with the spirit of invention, one cannot just create something by combining to other things to yield an insignificant advance in science/technology. In the words of Mr. Justice Nelson, "the improvement consists in the superiority of the material, and which is not new"; "but this of itself can never be the subject of a patent." "The difference is formal, and destitute of ingenuity or invention."

In light of the decision and opinion delivered here, one can call into question the patentability of countless patents that are simply improvements of a previous design. In the case of my selected patent, Patent No. 4973073, the patent holder was making an improvement upon the snowboard binding systems detailed in patents no. 4652007 and 4741550. Unlike the knob in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, however, this patent makes significant improvements over its precedent. It is not simply substituting a new material or implementing an insignificant change. This patent revolutionized snowboard bindings and the manner in which they bind the boot to the board; and it is still a system commonly used today. All previous binding designs required the fastening of straps or clamps to secure the boot, but this patent introduces a design that uses the force of the rider's step and weight to secure the boot automatically. This is far more inventive than a mere combination of preexisting ideas or designs.

Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical

Just like Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, this case calls into question the validity of a patent based on the existence of invention in the 'new' design. Lyon claims to have found a 'new' method of adhering an inorganic salt coating to an "optical surface," but the defendant is arguing that his improvements to a preexisting method are not worthy of the title 'invention' nor the patent in question. The court simplifies the decision to a debate of obviousness, and they decide that although the change was subtle and simple, it was not obvious "to a person having ordinary skill in the art." So in this case the Unites States Court of Appeals Second Circuit decided to affirm the validity of the patent, which could be grouped with Hotchkiss's knob as more of an improvement than an invention.

Under the domain of the decision and opinion of this case, I still believe Patent No. 4973073 would have been affirmed as a valid patent. This patent is much more suited to this case and the inventive process described here, since it goes beyond the obvious and makes a significant advance in its respective technology. Hotchkiss's knob was an unoriginal product with a makeover; but Lyon and the binding patent holder both took a significant, nonobvious step away from any precedent. In this case the precedent was a binding that had to be clamped to the boot by manually reaching down and adjusting it. Patent holders Raines and Deeney were dissatisfied with this labor-intensive practice and revolutionized bindings with their new 'step-in' binding technology. They didn't invent the binding, showcased in the reference patents, but they did change the game.