User:Dongxiao

Homework due Monday, 1/24/11 Xiao Dong

• Patent Number: United States Patent 4664372
• Date Issued: 05/12/1987
• Title: Bicycle-type exercise machine
• Link: [1]

This patent describes a bicycle-type exercise machine that has to ability to exercise the arms, shoulders, and legs. The machines includes pedals and flywheel mechanics like a bike for lower body exercising. It also has handle mechanics with resistance for upper body exercising. The machine is very compact, and fits in a housing that can fit in very small spaces. The user will have to provide his/her own sitting arrangement. The machine is small enough for usage inside a car, and has a handle for easy carriage. This machine is very useful as it is both small, and easily portable. It is very helpful for use on a long road trip or traveling, and ability to exercise both upper and lower bodies makes it a great workout machine.

Homework due Monday, 1/24/11 Xiao Dong

• The patent that I choose was Patent no. 4666372, a Bicycle-type exercise machine. The patent citied Patent 3968963, which is a Chair-type bicycle exercise device, and it also citied Patent No 3995491, which is Ergometer. These are just 2 of the patents that were cited among many others. For Patent No 3968963, it was a Chair-type bicycle exercise device. This is a very simple device. It is a described as “bicycle-type pedals are rotatable mounted on a frame in a manner whereby the pedals are rotatable by a user seated in a chair in proximity with the frame. The frame is connected to tracks that can draw the frame into under the chair for further storage.” The other device is the Ergometer, which is a bicycle-type exerciser that includes a flywheel that drives a sprocket and chain. By using permanent magnets on the coil and electromagnetic principals, no external electrical power is needed to power the metering apparatus, and the mechanic work from the operator is enough.
• Under the analysis of Hotchkiss and A&P, the patent that that I choose, the bicycle like exercise machine would not be patentable. As seen in the Ergometer, bicycle like exercise machines have been around for a long time and patented before. The key to the patent that I choose was the fact that it also gives an upper body workout using the handle mechanism and its small size and thus versatility by having the user provides his own sitting arrangement, giving it flexibility to be used everywhere. Under the A&P, it was argued that a merely combination of prior inventions could not be considered a new invention. The patent that I have chosen did exactly this. It combined the small size from Patent 3968963, which is a Chair-type bicycle exercise device, and merely added an upper body workout system with a simple addition of a handle. It could be claimed that the added handle for upper body workout is patentable, but it does not fit the non-obvious clause of the patent law. As shown in Hotchkiss vs Greenword, any simple addition that is obvious to a skilled mechanic is considered obvious, and this handle is very obvious to most general public it seems even, and thus this patent would not be patentable at all.
• However, it would work under the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under the Lyon Case. It is said in the Lyon case that if a need or something is required for a longtime in a certain field, but no one solves the problem using available technology. If someone uses an obvious solution, it is still considered a patent. This patent works because of this ruling. The patent that I have chosen fills a requirement long needed by the fitness community. People would always complain about the inability to exercise during long ride trips, and this device is able to deliver a great work out. Also the principal of working out both the upper body and lower body using a simple device is seek by some fitness members as they want a simple machine that can do both. Since this patent shows the first machine that is able to full these needs, it is valid under the Lyon ruling.
• As seen through the differences of ruling from these cases, an evolution of standards has definitely occurred in terms of the code regarding non-obviousness. With Congress passing the Act of 1952, it seems more lenient on patent placement. With the Hotchkiss and A&P cases, an invention was very strictly defined, and hard for many devices that merely combines things and adds simple addition, no matter how useful or out of the box, to be not an invention. With the law, patents are valid for much more circumstances, and places less strict emphasis on being completely more research and technology.

Homework due Friday, 2/4/11 Xiao Dong

• Non obvious:

Patent 811 describes a device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plow through rocky soil and thus to prevent damage to the plow. This patent solved this problem by attaching the plow shanks to spring clamps, to allow them to flex freely underneath the frame of the plow. Patent 798 were improvements to the clamp design by placing the hinge plate beneath the plow shank rather than above it, in order to minimize the outward motion of the shank away from the plate. The question that is called is whether the jump from patent 811, prior art, to patent 798 is obvious or non obvious. Although the Anderson’s Black Rock v Pavement Co, and KSP International Co v. Teleflex cases resulted in rulings of obvious from prior art. This case is very different, and should have a different decision. Two major points are different about the Patent 798 than the Patent 811. First, the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate do not appear in '811. Second, the position of the shank is reversed, being placed in patent '811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate. Although seemingly small, these improvements allow flexing of the plow shank was limited to the points between the spring clamp and the tip of the plow shank, absorbing the shock of hard objects on the ground more efficiently. In the KSP case, the obviousness was due to the combination of two already known systems that provided the benefits. In the Anderson case as well, the combination of two already known old elements resulted in the system. Many people, especially those in the arts, can recognized the benefits of combining the systems. This case is different, the Patent 798 is an upgraded, and much better version of the old patent with many noteworthy and innovative inventions. The positioning of the shank and connections allow for much greater efficiently, and this is not obvious to a person with ordinary skill either. Having the hinge plate reversed is drastically different, having it sandwiched cannot come from a man of ordinary skills as the same with the stirrup and bolted connection as its use is very innovate is these designs. Overall, this new patent is not obvious, and the patent should hold.

• Obvious:

Patent 811 describes a device designed to absorb shock from the shanks of chisel plows as they plow through rocky soil and thus to prevent damage to the plow. This patent solved this problem by attaching the plow shanks to spring clamps, to allow them to flex freely underneath the frame of the plow. Patent 798 were improvements to the clamp design by placing the hinge plate beneath the plow shank rather than above it, in order to minimize the outward motion of the shank away from the plate. The question that is called is whether the jump from patent 811, prior art, to patent 798 is obvious or non obvious. Following the rulings of Anderson’s Black Rock v Pavement Co, and KSP International Co v. Teleflex cases which resulted in rulings of obvious from prior art. Two major points are different about the Patent 798 than the Patent 811. First, the stirrup and the bolted connection of the shank to the hinge plate do not appear in '811. Second, the position of the shank is reversed, being placed in patent '811 above the hinge plate, sandwiched between it and the upper plate. These two improvements should be quite obvious to an ordinary mechanic skilled in the arts. As in the KSR case, “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Any person that had some knowledge would probably easily seen and thought of moving the hinge plate and adding an extra connection. These two differences are very small. Also stated in the Anderson case, “The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a ‘new or different function” Similarly, the new patent 798 did not give a new function to the device, it only was absorbing the shock of hard objects on the ground more efficiently. Such a great convenience from efficiency cant not be called a new function. Following precedent from the previous rulings, this is considered obvious.