PL Graham v. John Deere (1966): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
- First time Supreme Court had to interpret and use Sec. 103, Nonobviousness | |||
Patent 2,493,811 (original plow patent): claims that the plow has been made more effective by providing a pronounced pumping or vibratory action of the tools. Plow is more effective by (1) moving the fine soil to the bottom and coarse soil to the top which improves moisture collection, (2) creating small pools which can collect water, and (3) making the plow easier to pull. The plow also protects the work tool. | |||
Graham received patent '811 (above) in 1950 for plow with pumping action. He altered the design and received patent '798 in 1953. Patent '798 is under debate for infringement. Court declared invalid (i think). | |||
Patent 2,627,798 (Graham's altered plow patent): | |||
Revision as of 00:36, 4 February 2011
1955- Fifth Circuit Court declared patent valid
1964- Eighth Circuit Court declared patent invalid
(affirmed by Supreme Court- say neither Circuit Court applied "correct test")
- First time Supreme Court had to interpret and use Sec. 103, Nonobviousness
Patent 2,493,811 (original plow patent): claims that the plow has been made more effective by providing a pronounced pumping or vibratory action of the tools. Plow is more effective by (1) moving the fine soil to the bottom and coarse soil to the top which improves moisture collection, (2) creating small pools which can collect water, and (3) making the plow easier to pull. The plow also protects the work tool.
Graham received patent '811 (above) in 1950 for plow with pumping action. He altered the design and received patent '798 in 1953. Patent '798 is under debate for infringement. Court declared invalid (i think).
Patent 2,627,798 (Graham's altered plow patent):
