Notes - Revision history

Sbonomo at 06:28, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T06:28:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 4 February 2011
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Jefferson - no natural right to intellectual property, purpose of patent system is to encourage innovation, bring out new ideas, reward ppl for it. only for really new ideas, nothing trivial, obvious, etc.		Jefferson - no natural right to intellectual property, purpose of patent system is to encourage innovation, bring out new ideas, reward ppl for it. only for really new ideas, nothing trivial, obvious, etc.
	* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"		* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"


	Comparing old and new		Comparing old and new

Sbonomo at 06:28, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T06:28:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:28, 4 February 2011
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*"Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows."		*"Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows."
	* finger-operated sprayer with a "hold-down" cap		* finger-operated sprayer with a "hold-down" cap


	goes into history of patent law;		goes into history of patent law;
Line 27:		Line 26:
	* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"		* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"

			Comparing old and new

	*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood		*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood - precedent for new code
	"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.		"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.

	need to COMPARE patent app with prior skill in art		*need to COMPARE patent app with prior skill in art

	"Section 103, An invention which has been made, and which is new in the sense that the same thing has not been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference between the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently great to warrant a patent. It refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in section 102. If this difference is such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject matter cannot be patented.		"Section 103, An invention which has been made, and which is new in the sense that the same thing has not been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference between the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently great to warrant a patent. It refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in section 102. If this difference is such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject matter cannot be patented.

	last sentence of S 103 abolishes idea that patent requires a flash of genius		*last sentence of S 103 abolishes idea that patent requires a flash of genius

	some ppl think its a way of changing level of patentability; but they say no, its just codifying what was already ruled in Hotchkiss		*some ppl think its a way of changing level of patentability; but they say no, its just codifying what was already ruled in Hotchkiss

	[V.]		[V.]

Sbonomo at 06:26, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T06:26:10Z

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 some ppl think its a way of changing level of patentability; but they say no, its just codifying what was already ruled in Hotchkiss
-[v.]
 *determine scope of prior art
 *differences btwn that and claims
@@ Line 44: / Line 45: @@
 **judge obviousness based on these things
 secondary considerations can add relevancy

Sbonomo at 06:01, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T06:01:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:01, 4 February 2011
Line 38:		Line 38:

	some ppl think its a way of changing level of patentability; but they say no, its just codifying what was already ruled in Hotchkiss		some ppl think its a way of changing level of patentability; but they say no, its just codifying what was already ruled in Hotchkiss
			[v.]
	*determine scope of prior art		*determine scope of prior art
	*differences btwn that and claims		*differences btwn that and claims
	*determine level of ordinary skill in art		*determine level of ordinary skill in art
	**judge obviousness based on these things		**judge obviousness based on these things
			secondary considerations can add relevancy

Sbonomo at 06:00, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T06:00:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 4 February 2011
Line 33:		Line 33:
	need to COMPARE patent app with prior skill in art		need to COMPARE patent app with prior skill in art

	"Section 103, ~~for the first time in our statute, provides a condition which exists in the law and has existed for more than 100 years, but only by reason of decisions of the courts.~~ An invention which has been made, and which is new in the sense that the same thing has not been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference between the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently great to warrant a patent~~. That has been expressed in a large variety of ways in decisions of [383 U.S. 1, 15] the courts and in writings. Section 103 states this requirement in the title~~. It refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in section 102. If this difference is such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject matter cannot be patented.		"Section 103, An invention which has been made, and which is new in the sense that the same thing has not been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference between the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently great to warrant a patent. It refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in section 102. If this difference is such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject matter cannot be patented.

			last sentence of S 103 abolishes idea that patent requires a flash of genius

			some ppl think its a way of changing level of patentability; but they say no, its just codifying what was already ruled in Hotchkiss

			*determine scope of prior art
			*differences btwn that and claims
			*determine level of ordinary skill in art
			**judge obviousness based on these things

Sbonomo at 05:53, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T05:53:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 4 February 2011
Line 16:		Line 16:

	1952 Act was intended to codify judicial precedents embracing the principle long ago [383 U.S. 1, 4] announced by this Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood		1952 Act was intended to codify judicial precedents embracing the principle long ago [383 U.S. 1, 4] announced by this Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood


	2 cases under consideration:		2 cases under consideration:
Line 29:		Line 30:
	*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood		*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
	"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.		"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.

			need to COMPARE patent app with prior skill in art

			"Section 103, for the first time in our statute, provides a condition which exists in the law and has existed for more than 100 years, but only by reason of decisions of the courts. An invention which has been made, and which is new in the sense that the same thing has not been made before, may still not be patentable if the difference between the new thing and what was known before is not considered sufficiently great to warrant a patent. That has been expressed in a large variety of ways in decisions of [383 U.S. 1, 15] the courts and in writings. Section 103 states this requirement in the title. It refers to the difference between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art, meaning what was known before as described in section 102. If this difference is such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time to a person skilled in the art, then the subject matter cannot be patented.

Sbonomo at 05:44, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T05:44:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:44, 4 February 2011
Line 21:		Line 21:
	* finger-operated sprayer with a "hold-down" cap		* finger-operated sprayer with a "hold-down" cap

	goes into history of patent law.
			goes into history of patent law;
	Jefferson - no natural right to intellectual property, purpose of patent system is to encourage innovation, bring out new ideas, reward ppl for it. only for really new ideas, nothing trivial, obvious, etc.		Jefferson - no natural right to intellectual property, purpose of patent system is to encourage innovation, bring out new ideas, reward ppl for it. only for really new ideas, nothing trivial, obvious, etc.
	* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"		* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"


	*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood		*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
	"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.		"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.

Sbonomo at 05:43, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T05:43:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 4 February 2011
Line 17:		Line 17:
	1952 Act was intended to codify judicial precedents embracing the principle long ago [383 U.S. 1, 4] announced by this Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood		1952 Act was intended to codify judicial precedents embracing the principle long ago [383 U.S. 1, 4] announced by this Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

			2 cases under consideration:
	*"Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows."		*"Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows."
			* finger-operated sprayer with a "hold-down" cap

			goes into history of patent law.
			Jefferson - no natural right to intellectual property, purpose of patent system is to encourage innovation, bring out new ideas, reward ppl for it. only for really new ideas, nothing trivial, obvious, etc.
			* "the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment [383 U.S. 1, 11] of an exclusive patent,"
			*1851 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
			"[U]nless more ingenuity and skill . . . were required . . . than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skilful mechanic, not that of the inventor." At p. 267.

Sbonomo at 05:23, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T05:23:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:23, 4 February 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	*Non-obviousness		*Non-obviousness clarified
	*UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT		*UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
	*Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966		*Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966
Line 14:		Line 14:

	Basically saying there isn't enough new here that wouldn't be obvious to ordinary-skilled worker in art to warrant patent.		Basically saying there isn't enough new here that wouldn't be obvious to ordinary-skilled worker in art to warrant patent.

			1952 Act was intended to codify judicial precedents embracing the principle long ago [383 U.S. 1, 4] announced by this Court in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

			*"Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows."

Sbonomo at 05:17, 4 February 2011

2011-02-04T05:17:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:17, 4 February 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:

	Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid		Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid

			Basically saying there isn't enough new here that wouldn't be obvious to ordinary-skilled worker in art to warrant patent.