Kemnetz: Homework Assignment 3: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
Supporting Non-Obviousness Claim: | '''Supporting Non-Obviousness Claim:''' | ||
As to the non-obviousness between Graham’s patent and the Pfeirfer patent, it is very clear that although Graham may have used the metal fastening technique that the Pfiefer patent refers to, the resulting invention in Graham’s patent is completely non-obvious. Graham’s patent created a device that achieved similar results to the ‘811 patent, however it was able of created these similar results in a cheaper way. As can be seen from previous patent cases, cheaper often warrants a patent, even if that is the only benefit or improvement to the device. | As to the non-obviousness between Graham’s patent and the Pfeirfer patent, it is very clear that although Graham may have used the metal fastening technique that the Pfiefer patent refers to, the resulting invention in Graham’s patent is completely non-obvious. Graham’s patent created a device that achieved similar results to the ‘811 patent, however it was able of created these similar results in a cheaper way. As can be seen from previous patent cases, cheaper often warrants a patent, even if that is the only benefit or improvement to the device. | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Supporting Patent Invalidity: | '''Supporting Patent Invalidity:''' | ||
Graham’s patent is invalid due to the fact that it was an obvious next-step for the invention. The combination Graham invented led to the same end-result as patent ‘811. Both created systems that allowed for vibrations caused by a plow moving over uneven ground, to be dampened in such as way that leads to easier usage of the plow. The improvements Graham made were obvious improvements, even if they resulted in a cheaper final product. | Graham’s patent is invalid due to the fact that it was an obvious next-step for the invention. The combination Graham invented led to the same end-result as patent ‘811. Both created systems that allowed for vibrations caused by a plow moving over uneven ground, to be dampened in such as way that leads to easier usage of the plow. The improvements Graham made were obvious improvements, even if they resulted in a cheaper final product. | ||
Revision as of 17:01, 4 February 2011
Homework Assignment 3:
Graham Patent: Clamp for Vibrating Shank Plows Plowing tool – 1951 - Allows ground working tools to pass freely over obstructions (rocks, etc) and return to normal plowing position without damaging the plow -
Patent ‘811: Vibrating Plow and Mounting Therefore Plowing tool – 1947 - Pumping action results in easier pulling of the plow and therefore less power to pull the plow - Works fine soils toward the bottom and coarse soils towards the top - Creates small pockets and ridges in the soil for collecting moisture
Pfeifer Patent: Fastening Device General Usage – 1933 - Anchors corrugated metal sheets to a supporting member
Supporting Non-Obviousness Claim:
As to the non-obviousness between Graham’s patent and the Pfeirfer patent, it is very clear that although Graham may have used the metal fastening technique that the Pfiefer patent refers to, the resulting invention in Graham’s patent is completely non-obvious. Graham’s patent created a device that achieved similar results to the ‘811 patent, however it was able of created these similar results in a cheaper way. As can be seen from previous patent cases, cheaper often warrants a patent, even if that is the only benefit or improvement to the device. The ‘811 patent did not explicitly claim to allow easier passage of the plow over obstructions, whereas Graham’s patent did claim this benefit. His improvement allowed for easier usage of a plow, and creating easier usage of a device is another criteria of non-obviousness, since the original inventor would have made the device easier to use if the improvement was obvious.
Supporting Patent Invalidity:
Graham’s patent is invalid due to the fact that it was an obvious next-step for the invention. The combination Graham invented led to the same end-result as patent ‘811. Both created systems that allowed for vibrations caused by a plow moving over uneven ground, to be dampened in such as way that leads to easier usage of the plow. The improvements Graham made were obvious improvements, even if they resulted in a cheaper final product.
