Arguing both sides of Deere (Homework 3): Difference between revisions
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The fact is that a previously patented invention by Graham was identical to the current patent save only two differences 1. a translation of a joint and 2. the inversion of a piece. These small changes offere advantages over the previous models and were met with commercial success. However this does not warrant patentablility. | The fact is that a previously patented invention by Graham was identical to the current patent save only two differences 1. a translation of a joint and 2. the inversion of a piece. These small changes offere advantages over the previous models and were met with commercial success. However this does not warrant patentablility. | ||
It is clear that the "improvement" of the previously patented device was not an invention, but simply a slight alteration of procedure. A skilled worker in the area knows that there were fatigue issues in the original design adn that the plow would retract if it was simply hinged the other way. Limiting fatugue and the previous invention were both extremely evident in the art, therefore the alteration should be considered obvious under S 103 to someone reasonably skilled in the art. | KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) proved that if sufficient evidence is given that the alteration was a natural advance for the art, it is considered obvious. It is clear that the "improvement" of the previously patented device was not an invention, but simply a slight alteration of procedure. A skilled worker in the area knows that there were fatigue issues in the original design adn that the plow would retract if it was simply hinged the other way. Limiting fatugue and the previous invention were both extremely evident in the art, therefore the alteration should be considered obvious under S 103 to someone reasonably skilled in the art. | ||
Revision as of 15:45, 4 February 2011
Patent is valid
Patent is NOT valid
It is important to note that the claimed invention is a combination of parts which previously existed. There is no patent claim on an item, it is a claim on the combination of previously known items. When this is the case, precedent dictates that the formulation of this item be nonobvious to those of sufficient skill in the area as shown in Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969).
The fact is that a previously patented invention by Graham was identical to the current patent save only two differences 1. a translation of a joint and 2. the inversion of a piece. These small changes offere advantages over the previous models and were met with commercial success. However this does not warrant patentablility.
KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) proved that if sufficient evidence is given that the alteration was a natural advance for the art, it is considered obvious. It is clear that the "improvement" of the previously patented device was not an invention, but simply a slight alteration of procedure. A skilled worker in the area knows that there were fatigue issues in the original design adn that the plow would retract if it was simply hinged the other way. Limiting fatugue and the previous invention were both extremely evident in the art, therefore the alteration should be considered obvious under S 103 to someone reasonably skilled in the art.
