User:Gtorrisi/homework3.html

Patent in Question:
Clamp for Vibrating Shank Plows patent number 2,627,798

Prior Art:
Glencoe Clamp patent number 2,739,518
Vibrating Plow and Mounting Therefor patent number 2,493,811

Obvious
In light of the prior art of both Graham and Glencoe (listed above), Graham's newer patent (number 2,627,798) , is obvious. One of the main issues addressed in patent '798 is that the shank of the plow would contact and wear against the fixed upper plate in his previous design in patent no. '811. This upper plate was difficult and expensive to replace. The shank in Graham's original patent is hinged beneath the shank such that when the plow hits an object and flexes, the shank will end up contacting the fixed upper plate. In his new design, this problem is fixed by placing the pivot point above the shank so that when it flexes, the shank pivots away from the upper plate, rather than into it. This alone is a fairly obvious fix of the original design. When analyzing the kinematics of patent '811, it can be easily seen how there will be interference between the shank and the upper plate during operation. Without drastically changing the design, the easiest solution is to change the location of the pivot point, namely to place it at the end above the shank, exactly where he has placed it in his patent no. '798. The other obvious change would have been to place the entire mount on top of the beam rather than under it, but the pivot would still need to be on an end (the oposite end) with the pivot being closest to the beam rather than the shank; this would have required more modifications to Graham's existing design. Consequently, Graham went with the easiest and most obvious alteration of his existing patent and has sought to obtain another patent for it.

Not only does Graham's patent no. '798 appear to be obvious after analyzing his previous patent, no. '811, but it is also obvious when one examines the "Glencoe Clamp". Although the Glencoe clamp did not receive a patent until 1956, it was in production and on the market by 1951, prior to the Graham's patent in question. Another feature of '798 is that it contained a more sturdy attachment system than Graham's previous plow attachment. This new one included a "stirrup" which the shank would fit through in addition to being bolted down to the pivot plate. Prior to this, Glencoe's clamp also had a stirrup and bolt to fix the shank to the pivot platform. Additionally, upon inspection, it appears that the Glencoe clamp does not suffer from the issue of patent no. '811 whereby the shank contacts and damages the fixed upper plate. The Glencoe clamp provides a large range of motion for flexure before there would be any contact. In fact, the Glencoe clamp appears to be a supperior product as it allows for a large range of motion and provides a simpler means for replacing the shank. In '798, the shank goes through a stirrup and is bolted down, in addition to the spring shaft passing through both the shank and pivot plate. This means the spring system must be detached/attached when replacing the shank. In the Glencoe clamp, the shank passes through a stirrup and is bolted down, providing the same sturdiness, but the spring shaft only passes through the pivot plate and so there is no need to dissassemble this component.

Non-Obvious
If anything, I would expect his newer patent would have fallen under the realm of his original patent.