1/26/11 (Robins): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with "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..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. | 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. | |||
Revision as of 17:14, 26 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.
