User:Gallsup

== Homework 1: Due 24 January 2011 ==

Patent: 4737788 Helicopter Obstacle Detector Inventor: Peter D. Kennedy Assignees: Motorola, Inc. Primary Examiner: Bernarr Earl Gregory Filed: 4 April 1985 Issued: 12 April 1988

Obstacle Detector for helicopters and other aircraft having rotary blades. The detector uses pulsed Doppler radar to sense any obstacles in the flight path of the helicopter of like aircraft. The pulsed Doppler radar is mounted adjacent to the tip of one of the helicopter or like aircraft rotor blades. The rotor blade tip velocity of the helicopter or like aircraft shifts the frequency of radar echoes. This allows pulsed Doppler radar techniques to be used so that the echoes from obstacles are distinguished from clutter. Information for this patent can be found here.[1]

== Homework 2: Due 28 January 2011 ==

Patent: 4038656 Helicopter Discrimination Apparatus for the Murine Radar Inventors: John G. Webb, Jr. and Roger M. Gray Assignee: USA as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force Filing Date: 27 March 1974 Issue Date: 26 July 1977

This apparatus uses radar doppler filtering to distinguish between a missile and ground clutter. This patent includes the detecting means receiving a doppler signal, means to provide output doppler signal, means to receive output doppler signal. The main difference between this patent and patent 4737788 is that the latter is for a pulsed Doppler radar and it senses all obstacles in the flight path not just distinguishing between missiles and ground clutter like patent 4038656 does. Information for patent 4038656 can be found here. [2]

Under the ruling in Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood (1850), which stated that if the improvement could be done by a mechanic of the field then the invention is not be patentable, I am not sure that this patent 4737788 would still be valid. With the improvements in radar sensing, it seems natural to have a need to sense obstacles in the flight path of an aircraft, especially because of the many collisions in the early years of flight. The difficulty might come in to how to attach the sensor so that it is able to sense all around the aircraft for any obstacle not just missiles like the invention of patent 4038656. The ruling does also deal with material change, and I assume that the improvement of patent 4038656 by patent 4737788 involves improvements in computer software and electrical components. However, these improvements did take many years and are not always as obvious as changing clay for wood or metal. For patent 4737788 to stay valid it would need to be determined that the improvements made are not simple and the details to accomplish this improvement are not obvious to an ordinary person in the field.

Under the ruling in A.&P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp (1950), which stated that a mere compilation of inventions which were already in common use, does not make that compilation patentable if benefit of the whole is not greater than the sum of its components, I think that the patent 4737788 is still valid. It seems that the invention of patent 4737788 is not a compilation of existing inventions but merely an improvement of patent 4038656. However, if a pulsed Doppler was already made for an airplane or other like aircraft, and the difficulty of attaching a doppler radar to the rotating blade was demonstrated as it is in patent 4038656, then under the ruling in the A.&P. case, the patent 4737788 would be invalid. For the patent 4737788 to be invalid with regards to this case, it would have to be shown that the invention of patent 4737788 was a compilation of existing inventions and that its function as a whole is not new or different from the functions of the parts used to make the invention.

Under the ruling of Lyon v Bausch & Lomb (1955), which stated that even though it was theoretically an obvious improvement on an existing invention the fact that many had tried to make the invention and had failed along with the great need for the invention, that it was patentable, I think that patent 4737788 would still be valid. There is always a great need to make air travel safer especially in low visibility and other bad flight conditions, which the invention of patent 4737788 does. Also, there is about a 10 year gap between the issuing of patent 4038656 and the filing of patent 4737788. Since the invention would be in such high demand, it would seem unlikely that the improvement made on the invention of patent 4038656 by the invention of patent 4737788 would be simple in practice since it did take over 10 years to accomplish.

The differences in the how the validity of patent 4737788 might be understood can be explained by the evolution of the idea of the patent requirement for nonobviousness. Hotchkiss v Greenwood emphasized the fact that if an invention was a simple logical step from an existing invention then it was not patentable. In this case the patent was for a clay doorknob and its components. However, the knob had been made previously from wood and metal and there had be differently shaped door knobs made from clay. The ruling was therefore that the clay door knobs were not patentable because the improvement is merely on an improvement in material and any ordinary mechanic of this background could make this change. In A.&P. Tea Co. v Supermarket Corp. the main emphasis was on if a combination of existing inventions is patentable. In this case a cashier's counter was the invention being disputed and it was shown that the only difference in the compilation of other inventions was an extension of the counter. The combination of inventions did not perform any new or different function either which would have made the court more likely to rule that it was patentable. In Lyon v Bausch & Lomb the main emphasis was on the need for the invention and the failed attempts of other inventors to do the same thing. The invention in this case was a process of coating an optical surface such as for a binocular. The way this was done was by heating the optical surface in a vacuum to rid it of water and grease, then vaporize "inorganic salt" in the vacuum while keeping the optical surface heated. The process is repeated until the desired thickness is reached. While this might have seemed obvious to someone in the field at that time, the fact is that no one was able to successfully do what Lyon did and there was great need in the military services especially the Navy.

Patent: 4275396 Helicopter Rotating Blade Detection System Inventor: Omar J. Jacomini Filing Date: 12 October 1979 Issue Date: 23 June 1981

This patent is for an airborne pulse doppler radar that scans for any helicopters in the flight path. This patent includes the processors for detection which includes ones for transmitting and ones for receiving. It appears that the main difference between patent 4275396 and patent 4737788 is the ability of the later to distinguish the obstacles from clutter. However, the invention of patent 4275396 does include a means of inhibiting the transmitting processor from sending interference signals which can falsely identify a helicopter. Patent 4737788 appears to deal with all types of obstacles including those below whereas patent 4275396 appears to only deal with other helicopters in the flight path. The other difference is in order for the helicopter to be detected by the invention of patent 4275396 it must have a processor as well. This is not seem to be the case with patent 4737788. Information on patent 4275396 can be found here. [3]

Under Hotchkiss v Greenwood, it could seem like the invention of patent 4737788 was an obvious improvement on the invention of patent 4275396. The difficulty is clearly in being able to detect an obstacle not just a helicopter without having the processor on that obstacle. This however, was demonstrated by patent 4038656. So then the main distinction might be attaching an invention like that of patent 4038656 in a manner like the invention of patent 4275396 is attached to the aircraft. Also, there might be a distinction in just looking for missiles versus looking for any type of obstacle including other helicopters. Looking for one specific object like a missile which is usually about the same shape and has the same speed, at least for its size, seems like it would be easier to detect than using a system that searches for any obstacle, thus showing the difficulty in inventing an invention like that of patent 4737788. However, I think that under the Hotchkiss ruling, patent 4737788 would be considered invalid because they would think that the existing patents 4038656 and 4275396 would make it easier to invent and invention like that of patent 4737788.

Under A.&P. Tea Co. v Supermarket Corp., patent 4737788 would still be valid. It is not just a compilation of the inventions of patents 4038656 and 4275396 but an improvement of them. Also, the invention of patent 4737788 does have a new and different function than the functions of the inventions of patents 4038656 and 4275396. If the invention of patent 4737788 was just a combination of the inventions of patents 4038656 and 4275396, the invention of patent 4737788 would just be able to detect other helicopters which had a processor on it and missiles both in the flight path and the sensor would be attached to a blade. However, it seems that the invention of patent 4737788 allows any object to be detected in the flight path without it having a processor on it.

Under Lyon v Baush & Lomb, it seems that the patent 4737788 would still be valid. The need for improved detection of obstacles in the flight path can be shown by the issuing of patent 4275396. However, the limitations on what the sensor can detect by the invention of patent 4275396 also shows the need for an invention like that of patent 4737788. Also, the failure to expand the sensing abilities on the invention of patent 4275396 shows the difficulty in inventing something like that in patent 4737788 which has more expansive sensing capabilities. Patent 4275396 also shows the inability of the inventors of that patent to come up with an invention that had better sensing abilities suggesting the difficulty in inventing the improvement made by the invention of patent 4737788.

== Homework 3: Due 4 February 2011 ==

Graham v John Deere (1966) The patent belonging to Graham for a device that absorbs the shock on a plow shank, was deemed invalid because it was determined that it was obvious. It was found that Deere's device was merely a combination of prior art. Two of the patents referred to in the prior art are described below.

The patent in question: Clamp for Vibrating Shank Plows Inventor: William T. Graham Patent Number: 2627798 Filing Date: 27 August 1951 Issue Date: February 1953 More information on this patent can be found here. [4]

Prior Art: Fastening Device Inventor: William Pfeifer Patent Number 2014451 Filing Date: 30 March 1933 Issue Date: September 1935

This patent is for a fastening device which secures corrugated or other metal sheeting to parts of a supporting framework. Pfeifer describes his invention for use in this manner but makes it clear that this is only one way in which the invention can be used and thus there are many applications for it. The main purpose for this patent was to have a device for fastening sheet metal which was cheap and efficient as well as to eliminate damage to the sheeting caused by the attachment of the device to the sheeting while still mainting a tight seal around the contact between the device and the sheeting. More information on this patent can be found here. [5]

Vibrating Plow and Mounting Inventor: William T. Graham Patent Number: 2493811 Filing Date: 26 February 1947 Issue Date: January 1950

This patent is for a plow with many lateral tools that work under the surface to lift and break the soil to then use the exposed dirt clods to make alternate ridges and furrows. More information on this patent can be found here.[6]

The main emphasis claim by Graham in his later patent 2627798 was that shank along with the plow absorbed much of the vibration making the plow more durable and less prone to breaking. The earlier patent by Graham 2493811 tried to do the same thing but used a spring clamp to do so. Before Graham's work, most chisel plows had their shanks attached rigidly to the frames of the plows. However this led to the shank breaking and also to the need for a plow that could withstand hitting rocks.

Non-obviousness: Grahams later patent 2627798 is non-obvious with reference to his earlier patent 2493811 and Pfeifer's 2014451 because of the fact that the shank is able to absorb the shock of hitting a rock. in Pfeiffer's patent 2014451, the fastening device is for a rigid attachment. While Pfeiffer claims there are other uses for his fastening device, there is no indication that shank be pivoted. Graham's earlier patent 2493811 is also for a rigid attachment with a spring clamp. Also, if Grahams later patent 2627798 were merely a combination of his earlier plow in patent 2493811 and Pfeifer's shank in patent 2014451, then the device described in patent 2627798 would merely be a plow with a new way to attach a plank. One of Graham's intentions for the device in patent 2493811 was to reduce the shock placed on the invention after hitting a hard object, but this was not the case of Pfeifer's fastening device in patent 2014451. Pfeifer states the primary needs of the device in patent 2014451 to be low cost with respect to production and installation along with improved efficiency in the performance of the work of the fastening device. Improved efficiency is not necessarily improved durability; efficiency more relates to the method and speed of the plowing than to shock absorbtion. Some secondary concerns are that Graham's invention in 2627798 did fill a long felt need and it did have commercial success. Also, Graham first tried to solve the problem of shock to the chisel with his earlier patent 2493811. The fact that the invention of Graham's patent 2627798 took a few years, shows that the novelty of the device is not likely to be obvious because Graham had been trying to solve the problem for awhile. Just because Graham was earlier able to absorb the shock of the chisel by using a spring clamp in patent 2493811, and that Pfeiffer had found a good way to fasten shanks to supporting frames in patent 2014451, does not mean that it would be an obvious combination to someone of ordinary knowledge in the plow designing field. Graham would most likely be considered an expert in the field, and even though it might be obvious to him based on his own previous work, does not mean an ordinary plow mechanic would find it obvious. This can be demonstrated by the fact that Graham's device in patent 2627798 filled a long felt need which would have already been filled if the novelty in patent 2627798 were obvious to other people.

Obviousness: It appears that Graham's device in patent 2627798 is merely a combination of the devices in his previous patent 2493811 and Pfeifer's 2014451. The only novelty in the device of Graham's patent 2627798 is in the hinge allowing the chisel to absorb the shock better. It seems that the main emphasis for device in patent 2493811 is the laterally aranged tools for plowing in that the main desire for this device is to have device which is able to plow better whereas for the later device by Graham 2627798 is for absorbing the shock of hitting a hard object which emphasizes a more durable plowing machine. Therefore if Graham's primary focus for the device in the 2493811 patent was not shock reduction or elimination, then the obviousness of the device in patent 2627798 seems clearer. The first patent 2493811 was filed in 1947 and issued in 1950 whereas the second patent 2627798 was filed in 1951 and issued in 1953. This means that after Graham's initial plow patent 2493811, it took him at most 4 years to discover the novelty in his device in patent 2627798. Being well learned in the design of plow making, as demonstrated by his abilities in patent 2493811, and the fact that he had already come up with a way to reduce the shock absorbtion, it seems that the device in patent 2627798 would a likely next step. The issue then becomes whether it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the field of plow design. The first suit of infringement of patent 2627798 filed by Graham was in 1955 just 2 years after the patent was issued and just 4 years after the patent was filed. Because the timeline is so close, it is reasonable to believe that novelty of the device in patent 2627798 was obvious because other people specifically those at John Deere were able to come to the same conclusions as those of Graham's in patent 2627798, and fairly quickly as well, even if it was after Graham. (It would be interesting to see who specifically at John Deere came up with Graham's device, to see if he would also be considered an expert or a person with average knowledge of plows). Also, Pfeifer specifically states in his patent that there are many uses for his device and his patent should not be limited to the one use which he describes in patent 2014451. This is clear that the possibility to attach the shank to the plow in Pfeifer's manner was available to Graham and not his own. Therefore, the attachment used by Graham in patent 2627798 could be an obvious combination of his previous patent 2493811 and Pfeifer's attachment metod in patent 2014451. In other words, Graham's own patent 2493811 makes his newer one 2627798 invalid on the basis of obviousness, and that patent 2627798 could be considered valid if patent 2493811 did not exist.