Homework 2: Difference between revisions

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
← Older edit
Brobins (talk | contribs)
144 edits
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
CNORTON, PLEASE STOP CHANGING THIS PAGE, YOU NEED A DIFFERENT TITLE
1/28/2011


The author cites prior art in the form of two patents for fireproof poylmers. First is U.S. Patent No. 4,247,446 which describes a fireproof polymer substance based on a reticulated polyolefin containing polyethlyene and a copolymer of ethylene and several other compounds. The other is British patent No. 2,041,960 which describes a fireproof polymer containing the same polyethylene and also a hydrated metal oxide powder. The author claims that these polymers hardened by reticulation are very much less elastic and insufficiently flexible. They are also more expensive and more difficult to put into use, in particular when manufacturing sheaths for electric cables.


Underwater single-use camera([http://www.google.com/patents?id=2mA4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false 4882600]) cites patent [http://www.google.com/patents?id=b35ZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0# 3412661], a case which a consumer can put a conventional camera into to take underwater pictures with their own camera. This case was made of any waterproof material. The major difference between this article and the chosen patent is that the Kodak camera (the single use underwater camera) is disposable, and combines the camera and the waterproof case. It is not detachable as this case is. However, the greater analysis comes from the combination of this waterproof design case and patent [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=LTc4AAAAEBAJ&dq=4882600 4801957], a disposable camera with flash.
The case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood from 1850 details the case of an invalid patent for a doorknob and accompanying mechanical device. A patent was granted for the doorknob system which claimed to be an improvement of existing technology. The court eventually ruled the patent to be invalid since the patent was a combination of existing technologies and did not represent a scientific advancement worthy of protection by a patent. Although the invention was novel as no one had used that exact combination of materials and had utility as it made doorknobs less expensive the court still determined the patent invalid. This is a precursor to the future concept of nonobviousness required for patents to be granted. The fireproof polymer material similarly uses some similar ideas as past inventions to achieve a similar goal. In this case however the technology represents a significant scientific achievement. While the ideas of using ceramic door handles and using the dovetail screw had already been around and were simply combined in the Hotchkiss case, several of the techniques and materials used in this fireproof polymer are original. The use of the polyethylene and copolymer is similar to the other patents but the use of a non-reticulated polymer is original. Also the use of antimony oxide is unique to this patent. Additionally, where as the doorknob only provided no real improvement in performance, this fireproof material boasts a clearly higher flame resistance than previously patented materials.  


As A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. proves, combinations of old inventions without improvement to their function does not represent a patentable item. The flash included single-use camera was already developed (4801957), the idea for a waterproof camera case was already patented (3412661), and the clear underwater lens cover had been patented(4714333).  Therefore, it becomes necessary under A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. to prove that the patent in question improved upon the combination of these things.
The case of A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp from 1950 concerns a patent given for a system for faster grocery store checkout. The idea involved a three sided frame which pushed or pulled to move groceries to the cashier by the customer. The patent was intially granted since the concept of a counter with a bottomless self unloading tray was a decidedly novel idea and presented a new and useful combinationi of prior art. The court eventually decided that the patent was invalid since the invention was really an extension of the checkout counter which represented a business decision more than an invention. This is another case of nonobviousness contributing to the determination of a patents validity. In the case of the fireproof polymer, the invention represents a legitimate scientific advance and is has nothing to do with a business decision.  


Another necessity is to prove that the underwater camera is non-obvious to someone of sufficient skill in the area. This requirement can be grounds for nullification of a patent as seen in Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood.
Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb from 1955 discussed whether the invention of a nonreflective film and accompanying methods for its fabrication had been disclosed in any earlier patent or had been publicly used before the application on November 17, 1942. Cartwright had worked on a similar coating but had eventually abandoned it and Judge Burke concluded that Cartwright neither put the process to public use nor was he its prior inventor. The court ruled the patent to be valid but that the patentee may not recover damages from infringement from before 1953. The fireproof polymer patent is different in that it did not serve an entirely new purpose since previous patents for fireproof polymers existed. This coating patent was questioned in its validity only because it had come so close to being put into public use. The court affirmed its nonobviousness to “an ordinary mechanic skilled in the field” since the material had been attempted with failure for several years. The fireproof polymer represents an improvement to an existing technology with significant scientific advancement due to its superior performance.  


In this case, the first may be met by pointing out the improvement on the disposable single use underwater camera.  The Camera is an adaptation of completely seperate inventions, but improves a problem which is even addressed in the waterproof case patent.  The camera has problems with its viewfinder after being enclosed in the case.  As the viewfinder of the camera is no longer visable, Soumar( inventor of the case), added a viewfinder to the top of the case and required the photographer to correctely align this feature.  The Single use camera in question is built into the underwater case, meaing that the original viewfinder may be used.  This represents a large improvment in quality and clearly shows that this new disposable camera was in improvement over earlier cases.  Therefore, the combination of earlier known devices as unpatentable (as in the case of  A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.) does not apply, due to the improvment in function.  The invention is greater than the sum of its parts.
[[User:Andrew Chipouras]]


The next requirement is not so easily proved.  It seems Kodak was worried that this camera would be unpatentable as they devote an entire section of the patent to the fact that it does NOT violate this requirement.  The section gives specific examples where adeptness in the area of photography would not exlude this invention from patent.  The first point they make is that the casing is applied by the manufacturer.  This directly relates to the previous section where they claim an improvment in viewfinder performance, something they assume has been largely sought after since the introduction of underwater photography. 


The next advantage of this method which is not clearly obvious, is that the waterproof outer layer and inner plastic case could be created in the same plastic injection.  Thiis would help greatly in the cost of manufacturing the camera.  The economic advantage is also considered an improvement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
These two points create a strong case for non-obviousness, in particular the second claim.  Manufactuing in one step instead of two could reduce costs substantially.  It is not easily proved that the alignment of the viewfinder would not have been obvious, however this point is useless as long as the economic improvement exists.
 
 
== Conclusion ==
After examining the novelty and non-obviousness of the invention, it is clear to me that the patent would have been declared valid assuming no unforseen evidence.  It is clear that this patent offers an advantage over similar models and shows signs of ingenuity.  Although it is obvious that patent law has eveolved since the time of the compared cases, I believe that even under these more strict laws, this patent would have been obtainable and defensable.
 
 
 
== Cited Patents ==
 
3412661- patent for a case allowing underwater photography.  This airtight wooden case required previous ownership of a compatable camera to place in the water tight seal.  It required considerable skill to use as the camera now lacked a viewfinder, as the case covered it.
 
4801957 - a disposable camera also patented by Kodak.  This camera allowed for single use photography and featured many features we still see today on disposable cameras including flash and a wheel roll to physically move film.  This camera was made with a plastic inner shell and carboard outer shell.
 
4714333- This patent for a clear lens case for the back of the waterprrof case allowed the original viewfinder of the camera to be used.  However, this also required a large amount of skill to properly align the viewfinder and the clear case.  Also, any slight movement in the camera's positioning in the case rendered the viewfinder inaccurate after initial configuration.

Latest revision as of 18:12, 7 March 2011

1/28/2011

The author cites prior art in the form of two patents for fireproof poylmers. First is U.S. Patent No. 4,247,446 which describes a fireproof polymer substance based on a reticulated polyolefin containing polyethlyene and a copolymer of ethylene and several other compounds. The other is British patent No. 2,041,960 which describes a fireproof polymer containing the same polyethylene and also a hydrated metal oxide powder. The author claims that these polymers hardened by reticulation are very much less elastic and insufficiently flexible. They are also more expensive and more difficult to put into use, in particular when manufacturing sheaths for electric cables.

The case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood from 1850 details the case of an invalid patent for a doorknob and accompanying mechanical device. A patent was granted for the doorknob system which claimed to be an improvement of existing technology. The court eventually ruled the patent to be invalid since the patent was a combination of existing technologies and did not represent a scientific advancement worthy of protection by a patent. Although the invention was novel as no one had used that exact combination of materials and had utility as it made doorknobs less expensive the court still determined the patent invalid. This is a precursor to the future concept of nonobviousness required for patents to be granted. The fireproof polymer material similarly uses some similar ideas as past inventions to achieve a similar goal. In this case however the technology represents a significant scientific achievement. While the ideas of using ceramic door handles and using the dovetail screw had already been around and were simply combined in the Hotchkiss case, several of the techniques and materials used in this fireproof polymer are original. The use of the polyethylene and copolymer is similar to the other patents but the use of a non-reticulated polymer is original. Also the use of antimony oxide is unique to this patent. Additionally, where as the doorknob only provided no real improvement in performance, this fireproof material boasts a clearly higher flame resistance than previously patented materials.

The case of A & P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp from 1950 concerns a patent given for a system for faster grocery store checkout. The idea involved a three sided frame which pushed or pulled to move groceries to the cashier by the customer. The patent was intially granted since the concept of a counter with a bottomless self unloading tray was a decidedly novel idea and presented a new and useful combinationi of prior art. The court eventually decided that the patent was invalid since the invention was really an extension of the checkout counter which represented a business decision more than an invention. This is another case of nonobviousness contributing to the determination of a patents validity. In the case of the fireproof polymer, the invention represents a legitimate scientific advance and is has nothing to do with a business decision.

Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb from 1955 discussed whether the invention of a nonreflective film and accompanying methods for its fabrication had been disclosed in any earlier patent or had been publicly used before the application on November 17, 1942. Cartwright had worked on a similar coating but had eventually abandoned it and Judge Burke concluded that Cartwright neither put the process to public use nor was he its prior inventor. The court ruled the patent to be valid but that the patentee may not recover damages from infringement from before 1953. The fireproof polymer patent is different in that it did not serve an entirely new purpose since previous patents for fireproof polymers existed. This coating patent was questioned in its validity only because it had come so close to being put into public use. The court affirmed its nonobviousness to “an ordinary mechanic skilled in the field” since the material had been attempted with failure for several years. The fireproof polymer represents an improvement to an existing technology with significant scientific advancement due to its superior performance.

User:Andrew Chipouras


Retrieved from "https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=Homework_2&oldid=4040"