Due Friday, February 4, 2011
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Assume it is 2015 and you work for one of the companies in either the Graham or Adams case. Your corporate counsel has approached you to get information needed for litigation about why the patent being litigates is or is not obvious in light of the prior art. Based only on the two patents you read for Wednesday's assignment, write an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of non-obviousness and an analysis providing all the reasons supporting a conclusion of invalidity of the patent under 103. That is, give both sides of the argument.
Graham goals:
- make mounting for shanks so they can move around when you hit rocks in soil, dont break
- have fixed and movable parts - hinge securely connected to shank
'811 patent:
