1/28/11 Homework: Analyzing My Patent (kyergler)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 00:40, 28 January 2011 by Hamburgler (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

1) Powered Barrow or Cart [1], issued December 1959

2) Self-Propelled Earth Moving Device [2], issued June 1975


Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, and A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. Analysis

    Considering the way Hotchkiss' patent for a clay/porcelain knob was deemed invalid, my patent for a motorized wheelbarrow would also be invalid.  Referencing the two resources listed above, the new idea that came along with my patent is not a new and non-obvious idea.  Rather, my patent was a mere improvement to the first two patents in that it included terrain tires.  The scientific idea behind the patent is in no way new, and the improvement put into does not warrant a patent itself.
Retrieved from "https://controls.ame.nd.edu/mediawiki/index.php?title=1/28/11_Homework:_Analyzing_My_Patent_(kyergler)&oldid=1422"