Notes: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
*Non-obviousness | *Non-obviousness | ||
Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966 | *UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT | ||
*Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966 | |||
Petitioner: Graham - sues John Deere for patent infringement | Petitioner: Graham - sues John Deere for patent infringement | ||
| Line 6: | Line 7: | ||
Device: designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow | Device: designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow | ||
1955 - 5th circuit says valid - "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." | *1955 - 5th circuit says valid - "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." | ||
1966 - 8th circuit says invalid - no new result in the combination | |||
*1966 - 8th circuit says invalid - no new result in the combination | |||
Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid | |||
Revision as of 05:05, 4 February 2011
- Non-obviousness
- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
- Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966
Petitioner: Graham - sues John Deere for patent infringement
Device: designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow
- 1955 - 5th circuit says valid - "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way."
- 1966 - 8th circuit says invalid - no new result in the combination
Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid
