1-26-11

assignment- take patent an come up with related object, in terms of what was said in last 3 cases.

bonus answer- differing verdicts from case perspectives.

Patent=novelty+utility+nonobviousness

[Hotchkiss v. greenwood]

patent in dispute: new clay doorknob instead of wood and metal

recieved patent

plaintiff: new material and way it was made is not inventive. defender: newer material is cheaper and stronger, debatable attachment.

bill of exceptions: putting together may be novel, rather than material being different.

not many statutes in case summary.

Goodwine: ultimaatel describing jury instruction facts- ury implication of facts-judge he gives instruction did you find this, that, ...whats your punishment... in this case is combination an invention

whats one feature of a combo that should be patentable? the combo does something new and better. first to successfully combine them. (non-obvious inventiveness)

nothing is being promoted if its easy.

benefits of invention: cheaper, more effective, last longer, faster, etc

-chuck left, then tripped, ryan and krissy sniggered.

patent invalid after validity- burden of proof on defendent

patent reversed because different material isnt a different invention. Only better because of superior material property, not to do with an inventive act.

Dissenting opinion:clay is an advance, should have been patentable.

-chuck returns

better cheaper has properties of promoting science (but he suggests no skill in the art is required- which is not true anymore)

dissenter is closer to real (long felt needs accomplish, and combos with skill in art qualify patent)

precendents- most not supreme court precedent, buut have value as important decision.