1/28/11 Homework: Analyzing My Patent (kyergler): Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
== Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, and A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. Analysis == | == Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, and A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. Analysis == | ||
Considering the way Hotchkiss' patent for a clay/porcelain knob was deemed invalid, my patent for a motorized wheelbarrow would also be invalid. Referencing the two resources listed above, the new idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious idea. Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires. The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself. | |||
Revision as of 00:40, 28 January 2011
Related Patents
1) Powered Barrow or Cart [1], issued December 1959
2) Self-Propelled Earth Moving Device [2], issued June 1975
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, and A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. Analysis
Considering the way Hotchkiss' patent for a clay/porcelain knob was deemed invalid, my patent for a motorized wheelbarrow would also be invalid. Referencing the two resources listed above, the new idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious idea. Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires. The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself.
