NONOBVIOUSNESS: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. | The following are some cases through history that trace the evolution of what is currently the nonobviousness standard. | ||
===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood=== | ===Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)=== | ||
* 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=== | ===Graham v. John Deere (1966)=== | ||
* 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 | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*** failure of others to find a solution, etc. | *** failure of others to find a solution, etc. | ||
===U.S. v. Adams=== | ===U.S. v. Adams (1966)=== | ||
* 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 01:47, 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)
- 1850: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (full text)) Established the "nonobviousness" language the subsequently became codified.
Graham v. John Deere (1966)
- 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)
- 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.
