NONOBVIOUSNESS: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Created page with ' The main historical cases: * 1850: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (full text)) Established the "nonobviousness" language the subsequently became codifie…' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The main historical cases: | The main historical cases: | ||
* 1850: [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] ([[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (full text)]]) Established the "nonobviousness" language the subsequently became codified. | * 1850: [[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood]] ([[Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (full text)]]) Established the "nonobviousness" language the subsequently became codified. | ||
* 1966: [[ | * 1966: [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] The fundamental inquiries are | ||
** scope and content of the prior art; | ** scope and content of the prior art; | ||
** differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; | ** differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; | ||
Revision as of 20:21, 9 February 2010
The main historical cases:
- 1850: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (full text)) Established the "nonobviousness" language the subsequently became codified.
- 1966: Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966) The fundamental inquiries are
- scope and content of the prior art;
- differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
- level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and,
- secondary considerations, including:
- commercial success of the invention;
- long-felt but unsolved needs;
- failure of others to find a solution, etc.
- 1966: US V. Adams (US v. Adams (full text)) All the evidence must be considered. Even small changes can have large consequences, which is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.
