|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
| *The idea behind this patent was to create a device which could clean the bottom of a boat hull without necessitating lifting the boat out of the water or diving underneath while it is still in the water. The device consists of a long handle, capable of being held and manipulated by a person. At the end of the handle is a section made of a different material, with a length long enough to cover the surface of a boat hull from the water to the bottom of the hull. There is a scrubbing material attached to one side of this section, meant to go against the boat to achieve a cleaning affect. In order to form to the contours of the boat, the main material of this section is buoyant, so that it bends and sticks to the curvature of the boat. | | *The idea behind this patent was to create a device which could clean the bottom of a boat hull without necessitating lifting the boat out of the water or diving underneath while it is still in the water. The device consists of a long handle, capable of being held and manipulated by a person. At the end of the handle is a section made of a different material, with a length long enough to cover the surface of a boat hull from the water to the bottom of the hull. There is a scrubbing material attached to one side of this section, meant to go against the boat to achieve a cleaning affect. In order to form to the contours of the boat, the main material of this section is buoyant, so that it bends and sticks to the curvature of the boat. |
|
| |
|
| = Homework 2: Non-Obviousness, with Regards to 3 Cases = | | = [http://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php/User:Cbernhar/homework2.html Homework 2: Non-Obviousness, with Regards to 3 Cases] = |
|
| |
|
| ==The Citations== | | = [http://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php/User:Cbernhar/homework3.html Homework 3: Arguments on Non-Obviousness in Graham v. John Deere] = |
|
| |
|
| There are 4 citations in my patent:
| | = [http://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php/User:Cbernhar/homework4.html Homework 4: Non-Obviousness Page Edited] = |
|
| |
|
| [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Ty5AAAAAEBAJ "Patent 834399: Apparatus for cleaning hulls of ships" | | = [http://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php/User:Cbernhar/homework5.html Homework 5: Printed Publication Case] = |
| | |
| [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rN1oAAAAEBAJ "Patent 3010420: Buoyant boat bottom brush"
| |
| | |
| [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=hdouAAAAEBAJ "Patent 4407213: Cleaning implement for boats"
| |
| | |
| [http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=nwI4AAAAEBAJ "Patent 4648344:Boat hull cleaning device"
| |
| | |
| Three of the citations are patents held by other people, while the fourth citation is actually held by the same man who holds my chosen patent, and was only issued a year prior to my chosen patent.
| |
| | |
| The first citation is an older patent, issued in 1906, and describes a system of wires which go underneath the boat while it is in the water, to which a brush is attached on either side. They have inflatable areas, allowing them to be filled so that they are buoyant, and therefore rest against the boat hull while underwater. By moving the cables, one brush moves up the boat hull, while the other moves down, and reversing the motion reverses the directions, allowing for a scrubbing motion. The brushes are not large, so a significant movement up and down is necessary to reach the entire depth of the hull.
| |
| | |
| The second citation is a patent issued in 1961, and describes a brush, made of buoyant materials, with a long adjustable handle. The brush's buoyancy allows it to float upward and contact the hull, and the handle has two points of articulation so that it may bend and allow the user to stand closely next to the boat. The backside of the brush also has a squeegee on it, for scraping purposes. This brush is also not very large, once again requiring a significant up and down movement to cover the entire depth of the boat hull. It also includes a modification in which an elastic, inflatable member is added to the brush, to provide further buoyancy.
| |
| | |
| The third citation is a patent issued in 1983, and describes a brush and squeegee type apparatus attached to a long adjustable handle. This device, unlike the previous devices, is made up of a hollow stock, which allows certain portions of the cleaning implement (such as extra bristles or squeegee material) to be stored inside of the device when not in use. It is also used to adjust the buoyancy of the device by changing the level of water inside of the stock when one goes to clean the boat, allowing one to adjust the level for better efficiency when cleaning the hull. The handle is designed to bend at one point to allow the brush to float up and lie against the hull of the boat, and has second point of articulation where it is telescoping, allowing the length of the handle to change, in situations where a different length is needed to reach different parts of the boat. The brush is once again not very large, and requires the same significant up and down motion to cover the entire depth of the hull.
| |
| | |
| The final citation is a patent issued in 1987, a year prior to the issue of my patent, held by John Burgers, the man who holds my patent, and Ronald Setzer, who does not hold my patent. This patent is worrisome, for it is in most ways the exact same as my patent, with only a slight change. It consists of a device with along handle, and then a main section of material, long enough to run along the entire depth of the hull, made out of stainless steel with a thickness such that it can bend freely. Attached to the top surface of the steel is a scrubbing material, which can be used to clean the hull of the boat. In order to contour to the shape of the boat, several float devices are attached evenly to the underside of the steel, in this case small buoys made of PVC pipe. This bends the steel along the underside of the boat, allowing for scrubbing, and because it covers the entire depth of the hull, it does not take significant up and down movement to reach all areas of the boat.
| |
| | |
| ==Patentability Considering Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 11 (1850)==
| |
| | |
| Hotchkiss v. Greenwood is considered the starting point for requirements beyond just technical novelty and utility in patent law. The matter in question was whether a patent about making knobs out of clay in a certain fashion was valid, where all the mechanical aspects and designs of the knob were not new, and making knobs out of clay was not new either, it was just that using clay in this one design had not yet been done. This made the device technically novel, as it had not been done before, and it had utility, as it was found to be better than other alternatives because it was cheaper, more durable, and aesthetically pleasing. Despite this, the court decided that the patent was not valid, deciding that the improvement was a work of "a skilled mechanic," and did not contain the quality of inventiveness that truly defined the spirit of the requirements to obtain a patent. This established a precedent that inventions needed to be more than just novel and useful, they must also have a quality about them that was not at once inherently obvious to anyone in the field.
| |
| | |
| In light of this decision, I would say that my patent holds in relation to the first three citations, but the fourth is a more difficult case. Certainly, in regards to the first citation, which uses a system of wires, with small brushes that may be inflated to become buoyant, I believe there are enough differences. Manipulation through the use of a handle, being able to stand solidly on a dock, is a key difference, but it is not as important I think as the shape and make of the cleaning device itself, which can cover the entire depth of the hull without being moved up and down. This means that the boat can be cleaned much more efficiently, as it covers much more area at once. Also, it is made of a buoyant material, rather than being inflatable, which poses some possible advantages, such as not having to fill it before use, and not carrying the risk of hitting something and puncturing the inflatable section, which would then not lift up to press against the boat, and therefore not scrubbing it. These are several key differences, which although perhaps at first sight may not be so groundbreaking, are clearly more efficient than the citation, and a large enough departure to have required some kind of inventiveness.
| |
| | |
| I would still say that my patent holds in light of the second citation, although they have more in common.
| |
Homework 1: Finding a Patent
Patent 4781139: One man manual boat hull cleaning device
Date issued: August 18, 1986
- The idea behind this patent was to create a device which could clean the bottom of a boat hull without necessitating lifting the boat out of the water or diving underneath while it is still in the water. The device consists of a long handle, capable of being held and manipulated by a person. At the end of the handle is a section made of a different material, with a length long enough to cover the surface of a boat hull from the water to the bottom of the hull. There is a scrubbing material attached to one side of this section, meant to go against the boat to achieve a cleaning affect. In order to form to the contours of the boat, the main material of this section is buoyant, so that it bends and sticks to the curvature of the boat.
