RPC:HW due 2-9-11-NONOBVIOUSNESS: Difference between revisions
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
==Ordinary Skill in the Art== | ==Ordinary Skill in the Art== | ||
The term ordinary skill in the art refers to a person who is ocnsidered to have normal skills and knowledge in a particular field, and is useful for determining if an invention possesses nonobviousness. One test the courts currently use today is called the "Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test" requires a person with the ordinary skill in the art to express their opinion if having knowledge of the prior art would lead one to combine the items in the questioned patent in an obvious manner. This is shown in Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 11 F.Supp.2d 18, 48 USPQ2d 1139 (D.D.C. June 12, 1998 where Winner International the makers of the superclub anticar theft device claim infringement on the patent by Wang who made the Gorilla Grip antitheft mechanism. This case upheld that with possession of knowledge in the prior art, any suggestion from that prior art to combine items renders an invention obvious. | The term ordinary skill in the art refers to a person who is ocnsidered to have normal skills and knowledge in a particular field, and is useful for determining if an invention possesses nonobviousness. That is to say, in a court of law, if the testimony of a football players health were in question, the opinion of a doctor would be deemed the knowledge in the necessary art where as the opinion of the coach would hold no bearing. The ordinary skill in the art would be engineers or people with technical knowledge in the specific field dealing with the patentable item. | ||
One test the courts currently use today is called the "Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test" requires a person with the ordinary skill in the art to express their opinion if having knowledge of the prior art would lead one to combine the items in the questioned patent in an obvious manner. This is shown in Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 11 F.Supp.2d 18, 48 USPQ2d 1139 (D.D.C. June 12, 1998 where Winner International the makers of the superclub anticar theft device claim infringement on the patent by Wang who made the Gorilla Grip antitheft mechanism. This case upheld that with possession of knowledge in the prior art, any suggestion from that prior art to combine items renders an invention obvious. | |||
Revision as of 13:07, 9 February 2011
NOTE TO PROF GOODWINE: I DIDNT PASTE ENTIRE PAPER IN,JUST THE ADDED SECTIONS LEFT BLANK SO AS NOT TO MAKE YOU SEARCH. SO 3-5 PAGE LENGTH SHOULD APPLY.
Relationship with Novelty
Nonobviousness vs. Invention
Secondary Considerations
Ordinary Skill in the Art
The term ordinary skill in the art refers to a person who is ocnsidered to have normal skills and knowledge in a particular field, and is useful for determining if an invention possesses nonobviousness. That is to say, in a court of law, if the testimony of a football players health were in question, the opinion of a doctor would be deemed the knowledge in the necessary art where as the opinion of the coach would hold no bearing. The ordinary skill in the art would be engineers or people with technical knowledge in the specific field dealing with the patentable item.
One test the courts currently use today is called the "Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation Test" requires a person with the ordinary skill in the art to express their opinion if having knowledge of the prior art would lead one to combine the items in the questioned patent in an obvious manner. This is shown in Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 11 F.Supp.2d 18, 48 USPQ2d 1139 (D.D.C. June 12, 1998 where Winner International the makers of the superclub anticar theft device claim infringement on the patent by Wang who made the Gorilla Grip antitheft mechanism. This case upheld that with possession of knowledge in the prior art, any suggestion from that prior art to combine items renders an invention obvious.
