Homework 2

Underwater single-use camera(4882600link title) cites patent 3412661, a case which a consumer can put a conventional camera into to take underwater pictures with their own camera. This case was made of any waterproof material. The major difference between this article and the chosen patent is that the Kodak camera (the single use underwater camera) is disposable, and combines the camera and the waterproof case. It is not detachable as this case is. However, the greater analysis comes from the combination of this waterproof design case and patent 4801957, a disposable camera with flash.

As A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. proves, combinations of old inventions without improvement to their function does not represent a patentable item. The flash included single-use camera was already developed (4801957), the idea for a waterproof camera case was already patented (3412661), and the clear underwater lens cover had been patented(4714333). Therefore, it becomes necessary under A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. to prove that the patent in question improved upon the combination of these things.

Another necessity is to prove that the underwater camera is non-obvious to someone of sufficient skill in the area. This requirement can e grounds for nullification of a patent as seen in Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood.