NONOBVIOUSNESS: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The | ==Historical Development== | ||
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. | |||
===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood=== | |||
* 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. | ||
===Graham v. John Deere=== | |||
* 1966: [[Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966)]] The fundamental inquiries are | * 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; | ||
| Line 9: | Line 16: | ||
*** long-felt but unsolved needs; | *** long-felt but unsolved needs; | ||
*** failure of others to find a solution, etc. | *** failure of others to find a solution, etc. | ||
===U.S. v. Adams=== | |||
* 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. | * 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. | ||
Revision as of 01:46, 10 February 2010
Historical Development
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard.
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
- 1850: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (full text)) Established the "nonobviousness" language the subsequently became codified.
Graham v. John Deere
- 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.
U.S. v. Adams
- 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.
