User:Cbernhar/homework3.html

Homework 3: Arguments on Non-Obviousness in Graham v. John Deere

The patent in question:

Patent 2627798: Clamp for Vibrating Shank Plows

The prior art:

Patent 2493811: Vibrating Plow and Mounting Therefor

Patent 2739518: Shank Holder

Arguments for Obviousness

When taking into account the prior art of both Graham's previous patent, 2493811, and the so-called "Glencoe Clamp," 2739518, it must be seen that Graham's most recent patent, 2627798, is invalid. Although '798 is useful and technically novel, the improvements made are not sufficient to make it non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. '798 itself is simply an improvement upon the design of Graham's earlier work, '811. In this respect, the design of the two devices is very similar, with small changes. First, the hinge has been attached above the shank, as opposed to below, so that the shank itself no longer touches the base plate of the clamp. This was done to reduce the wear on the upper plate, as the shank would rub against it as it moved up and down. Second, the shank is now secured to the hinge by a nut and bolt at the front, a stirrup at the rear and the spring rod passing through a slot, as opposed to only the spring rod. These additions provided more attachments between the hinge and shank, which lowered the stress and wear on the spring rod. Graham's claims made a point that these attachments also maintained continuous contact between the two components, shank and hinge. These changes certainly set '798 apart from '811, but whether the changes are non-obvious is not so clear. It would seem apparent from a simple analysis of '811 that as the shank moves it would wear against the plate. The easiest solution, one would then think, is to change its placement so that it could not. How simple a solution, then, to simply flip the shank and hinge over, and the parts no longer contact. As for the extra attachments, adding a nut and bolt to secure it at the front and stirrup at the rear are hardly impressive changes.

Add to the fact that there is another prior art, the Glencoe Clamp. Although the Glencoe Clamp appears at first glance to be different, having its hinge below the shank, and not having the spring rod go through both the shank and hinge, it can be seen that mechanically, they both accomplish the same purpose of improving upon '811. Despite the hinge being located below the shank, it can be seen that its placement allows the shank to move without contacting the upper plate, which was precisely the purpose of Graham's first change in '798. Likewise, although the spring rod does not go through both shank and hinge, this does not change the way that the machine moves, and in fact, the attachment of the shank to the hinge is accomplished by a stirrup in the rear and a nut and bolt at the front end of the shank, just as in '798. Graham's goal of reducing the wear on both parts is easily met by this device, which does not allow contact between the upper plate and shank, and attaches the shank to the hinge without even using the spring rod. Likewise, Graham's emphasis in changing his claim to state that '798 maintained continuous contact between shank and hinge is met by the Glencoe Clamp, with the exact same attachments. Therefore, a patent which seemed to be barely enough of an improvement over its predecessor, now becomes entirely obvious. A device which accomplished the desired goal of the changes in a mechanically equivalent fashion was already made before Graham patented his own solution. Furthermore, since it was made earlier, one can assume then that Graham's non-obvious changes were in fact quite obvious, as another company was able to look upon and improve his previous iteration in under 5 short years. There can be no doubt then, that '798 is obvious, and therefore, an invalid patent.