Graham v. John Deere Karch: Difference between revisions
Created page with "Graham had a patent on shock absorbers on plow shanks Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper a..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
"Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." | "Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." | ||
[[User: Sam Karch]] | |||
Revision as of 17:32, 31 January 2011
Graham had a patent on shock absorbers on plow shanks
Fifth Circuit held the patent valid, ruling that a combination is patentable when it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way."
Eighth Circuit held that since there was no new result in the combination the patent was invalid.
Jefferson: "having a monopoly on an idea is not a natural right"
Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made - sec 103
"Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy."
