Homework 3: Due Friday February 4: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "==Arguing a Conclusion for Non-Obviousness== ==Supporting a Conclusion of Invalidity== As mentioned in the Graham v. John Deere case, there are 2 parts of patent '798 that are d..." |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 14:04, 4 February 2011
Arguing a Conclusion for Non-Obviousness
Supporting a Conclusion of Invalidity
As mentioned in the Graham v. John Deere case, there are 2 parts of patent '798 that are different from patent '811 that preceded it:
- 1) "the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate do not appear"
- 2) "the position of the shank is reversed, being placed in patent '811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate. The shank is held in place by the spring rod which is hooked against the bottom of the hinge plate passing through a slot in the shank"
