1/28/11 Homework: Analyzing My Patent (kyergler): Difference between revisions
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) |
Hamburgler (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
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 proposed idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious one. Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires. The general idea stayed the same. The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself. | 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 proposed idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious one. Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires. The general idea stayed the same. The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself. | ||
With respect to the A. & P patent case, my motorized wheelbarrow patent was is not a scientific breakthrough, nor an economically valid idea to be considered a patent. | With respect to the A. & P patent case, my motorized wheelbarrow patent was is not a scientific breakthrough, nor an economically valid idea to be considered a patent. | ||
However, if one is to consider the novelty and non-obviousness of my patent to be valid, there is still a "public domain" boundary to approach. The "Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb" case brought about the issue of validity after public release and sale. I do not know enough about my patent to see if knowledge about public sale was released, but I suppose that since there have been multiple patents issued for different versions of motorized wheelbarrows that the definition of public use and sale is very hard to research and prove. | However, if one is to consider the novelty and non-obviousness of my patent to be valid, there is still a "public domain" boundary to approach. The "Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb" case brought about the issue of validity after public release and sale. I do not know enough about my patent to see if knowledge about public sale was released, but I suppose that since there have been multiple patents issued for different versions of motorized wheelbarrows that the definition of public use and sale is very hard to research and prove. | ||
Revision as of 01:16, 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 proposed idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious one. Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires. The general idea stayed the same. The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself.
With respect to the A. & P patent case, my motorized wheelbarrow patent was is not a scientific breakthrough, nor an economically valid idea to be considered a patent.
However, if one is to consider the novelty and non-obviousness of my patent to be valid, there is still a "public domain" boundary to approach. The "Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb" case brought about the issue of validity after public release and sale. I do not know enough about my patent to see if knowledge about public sale was released, but I suppose that since there have been multiple patents issued for different versions of motorized wheelbarrows that the definition of public use and sale is very hard to research and prove.
