User:Gtorrisi/homework2.html

Referenced Patents
The patent I have chosen to analyze is a combination of a backpack with a support system (should straps as well as a waist strap) where the waist belt portion is also a detachable harness. Several previous patents are referenced by this one.

One previous patent that is referenced is patent # 3132779, which is a “load carrier”. This is a device capable of carrying multiple items, and may be connected to a harness, particularly suitable for parachutists. The device and its attached parcels is easily released from the user. There are also leg loops which are secured at one end by passing a loop of material through a D ring and then inserting a pin through the loop of material. Since the leg loop is under tension, it remains attached.

Another patent of particular interest is patent # 3757893, which is a harness. The previously available harness styles were either very restrictive in the allowable motion of the user, uncomfortable for extended periods of time, or both. This harness had two independent leg loops (some old harnesses had just one large leg loop). There was also some padding on the harness to make it more comfortable to wear.

Two other patents which referenced are patent # 3516586, and 3840162. Both of these are for pack frames or components of backpack frames that include a waist strap to help distribute the load.

Hotchkiss Patentability (1850)
The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood case was about whether or not a doorknob, or other type of knob, was patentable. Neither the concept of the knob, the method of attachment, nor the materials used were new. However the use of clay as a knob instead of wood or metal was new. During the case it was argued that the use of clay should be patentable since it was a superior product compared with other knobs and thus had utility. In the end, it was decided that this was insufficient reasoning and not patentable since this was merely the substitution of one material for another, and therefore merely the work of the “skillful mechanic” and not that an inventor.

Under this court ruling, I believe that the patent I have chosen would still be patentable despite the aforementioned patents. While the one concept of having an easily detachable pack was known, it had been applied in a different fashion. The previous invention was for a completely releasable pack, whereas with this patent, only a portion, the climbing harness, was to be detached. Similarly, climbing harnesses, and backpacks with waist belts had been in existence prior to this invention, but they had never been combined in this fashion. Although the materials used were similar for each respective item, the true test is that this was a novel device with utility. Never before had there been a backpack with a detachable harness incorporated into its design.

A&P Patentability (1950)
In the case of A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., the patent in question was a device for a cashier’s counter which would speed up the process of check-out. Throughout the case it was found that there was nothing “novel” about this invention. It was less of an invention and more of a “gadget,” created simply by the combination of some previously existing items. The only “new” aspect of it was found to be the extension of the cashier’s counter. Every other component of this product was found to be “prior art.” The argument for the patent to stand was that the device in question, although comprised of prior art, was combined in such a manner as to serve a new and useful purpose and there had been much commercial success for this device. However, there is nothing in the patent laws dictating anything about commercial success. The findings of the court was that because, save for the counter’s extension, there were no new elements and these elements were used to perform the tasks that they had previously been known to do, this was not worthy of a patent. It may have been a good idea, but nothing novel was created.

Two of the judges agreed that the patent was invalid but emphasized that a patent should be given in order to “promote the progress of science and useful arts.” Simply being new and useful is not reason enough to warrant a patent. There must be an obvious advancement to science, rather than taking the next obvious or logical step in an already existing field.

It is possible to utilize prior art in a new device, however there must be a new function performed not previously accomplished by the prior art. Similarly, a device which is able to perform a previously known function may be patented, but it must be a result of new art which is in some way an improvement.

With respect to this ruling, the patent I have chosen would most likely be found to be invalid. Although a backpack with a detachable harness had never before been in the public domain, all of the components used to create it had. The main components of a backpack containing a waist support strap and a comfortable harness with individual leg loops were already in existence. Additionally, the method of attaching the harness to the backpack via loops of fabric being inserted through buckles and with a pin to lock it in place was previously described in the patent for the load carrying device. These leg loops, and in fact the whole of the device, was also able to be removed easily and did not require any complex unfastening or maneuvering (i.e. stepping out) of the device. One of the claims of my chosen patent the additional benefit of having the leg loops attachable/detachable without needing to take the rest of the pack/harness on or off, and a similar form of this was already prior art. While the general concept may have been novel and useful, it was merely a combination of several existing items. Additionally, no new function was performed by the addition of these parts to create the item in question. The pack and waist support strap performed its previous role, the harness served its same purpose, and the quickly attachable/detachable connection method served its same function. Since this is a combination of existing components which served no new functions, it would have been found invalid for a patent.

Lyon Patentability (1955)
Under Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, the concept of nonobviousness was more fully examined. In this case, the Lyon had patented his method of coating lenses by pre-heating the lens, continuing to heat the lens during coating, and then baking the lens afterwards. Part of the argument was whether the practice had been in the public domain prior to the patent being issued, as well as whether the concept was trivial or obvious and therefore unpatentable. It was held that under title 35, section 103 of the U.S. code, that this patent was in fact valid. The reasoning was that although it may have sounded like an obvious additional step, no-one had been performing this step despite strong efforts to find improved methods for coating lenses throughout the field. Section 103 states that an invention must not be obvious to, "...a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." Another area of question was whether or not the method had been fully disclosed or specified in the granting of the patent. This too was found to have been sufficient for the patent's issuance. If a method or invention is obvious, and there is a demonstrated need for it, then there is a good chance that someone would have discovered it already. Since this was not the case, it was deemed that this method of continued heating was not obvious. It was also found that although someone had tried this method prior, he had abandoned the process and it had never been in the public domain and was therefore still patentable.

According to this ruling, my patent for a backpack with a detachable harness would likely have been found to be patentable. Presumably, if this were an obvious invention other people would have made their own versions for personal use and it would have been in the public domain already. However, as this does not appear to have been the case, this solution to needing a harness and a backpack seems to be unobvious. Furthermore, this concept also brought some subtle, but important new features together rather than just sticking a harness on a backpack. Having a pouch to store the leg loops when not in use is one such addition which adds to the usefulness of this product. Additionally, the loops on the harness used to quickly connect it to the pack give the harness component a unique design when compared against other harnesses. Even though it may seem easy enough to attach a harness to a backpack, it had not been done before, despite there being definite situations where this would prove useful. Therefore, this would have been found to be an unobvious invention with utility and novelty and granted a patent.