1/26/11 (Robins): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
m moved 1/26/11 to 1/26/11 (Robins): More specific |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
judge dissented saying that new material warrented a patent because it was an improvement, ordinary skill in the art does not matter. If its new or better, thats all that matters. <<<no longer true. | judge dissented saying that new material warrented a patent because it was an improvement, ordinary skill in the art does not matter. If its new or better, thats all that matters. <<<no longer true. | ||
A&P case- this case was reversed, it was judged that the combination of old inventions was not a patentable item. Corporate success is not a justification for a patent. | |||
Latest revision as of 16:55, 28 January 2011
Hotchkiss v Greenwood tells us the overall result must be greater than the sum of the parts. Using a new material in this case was equivalent to the work that a skilled mechanic could perform. Therefore the patent was invalid.
judge dissented saying that new material warrented a patent because it was an improvement, ordinary skill in the art does not matter. If its new or better, thats all that matters. <<<no longer true.
A&P case- this case was reversed, it was judged that the combination of old inventions was not a patentable item. Corporate success is not a justification for a patent.
