NONOBVIOUSNESS Carter
Chosen Invention
Patent 4252138: Adjustable Crutch for Raising From Seated to Standing Position
Date Issued: February 24, 1981
The foundation of the invention is a crutch with a length that can be manually adjusted through the use of a lever. The user reduces the height of both crutches to a minimum while in a seated position and then places his weight upon both crutches. In order to raise to a standing position, the user alternately shifts his weight from one crutch to the other, while operating the lever on the crutch that is not supporting any weight. By operating the lever of the non supportive crutch, the user can increase the length iteratively until both crutches are at the proper height for standing position.
Evaluation of Patent
Regarding Cases: Hotchkiss v. Greenwod, A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., and Lyon vs. Bausch & Lomb
Overview of Referenced Patents:
Patent 3738674
The most recent reference cited by Patent 4252138, the height adjustable crutch, was Patent 3738674, the “ski equipped crutch,” which describes an invention predicated on the design of an instrument that can be utilized as both a ski/ski pole and a crutch. The patent for the “ski crutch” highlights the ability of the ski portion of the instrument to fold up and essentially form a regular shaped forearm crutch. Also included in the design outline is the presence of a slip-resistant member to prevent slippage in snowy conditions and a claw like appendage that can be employed as a brake when the “ski crutch” is used for downhill skiing. Like the height-adjustable crutch, the “ski crutch” is aimed at not only facilitating the typical motion of a handicapped individual, but also assisting the individual in situations where a typical crutch cannot provide such help. The focus of this design on the ability to manipulate the crutch to fit two specific purposes is the most crucial element. While Patent 4252138 has no ski attachment or brake mechanism, it utilizes the same concept of adjusting the shape and size of the crutch for two specific scenarios: standing and sitting.
Patent 2960095
Another patent referenced is Patent 2960095, which describes a walking cane that can easily be converted into a crutch. Using sliding and revolute joints, the handle of the walking stick can be converted into the arm rest for the crutch and the height of the support device can be adjusted to meet the needs of the user. The major connection between this patent and the height adjustable crutch is the ability of the crutch to be easily adjusted, specifically the overall height of the instrument. The way in which the crutch is adjusted though is different for each design, as the walking cane/crutch has to be adjusted near the center of the cane by the user, an action that cannot be done easily while maintaining one’s balance. The more recent design allows for adjustment of the crutch height through the manual operation of a lever, which allows for the handicapped individual to rise from a seated to standing position. Both designs however maintain the same shape (only reduced or increased in length) during the adjustment process.
Analysis of Relevant Cases:
Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
The height adjustable crutch would easily be patentable according to the criteria set forth in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850), as the design instituted required more “skill and ingenuity ….than was possessed by an ordinary mechanic.” Although the cane/crutch allows for the adjustment of height, the newer crutch provides the user with dual levers to raise the height of each crutch, while maintaining the weight bearing support of the device. The “ski crutch” does not even contain a height adjustment feature, as the only real connection between the two designs is the simple premise of manipulating a crutch for various purposes. While the inventor certainly received inspiration from these previous designs, the improvements made upon the original inventions are significant and by no means “destitute of ingenuity or invention.”
A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.
According to the precedent set forth by A&P Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp., the height adjustable crutch would again be patentable, as it constitutes an invention that is innovative enough to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” The design of a crutch that provides the user with the ability to adjust the height through the use of a lever is worthy enough of an invention, as none of the reference patents outline a design that could accomplish the same feat as easily. Furthermore, the height adjustable crutch provides an important service to handicapped individuals, as it is designed specifically for the assistance of an individual attempting to rise from a seated to standing position. Thus, because the new design accomplishes a task that neither of the two previous inventions accomplishes it can be stated that the product upholds the purpose of patents, which is “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb
Lyon vs. Bausch & Lomb (1955) addresses the issue of nonobviousness, which stipulates that the change the proposed design is based upon must not be “obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” The stipulations presented by the nonobviousness clause are more difficult to adhere to for the height adjustable crutch; however, it may still past the test. While it is not unbelievable that an average designer in the field of equipment for disabled individuals could develop an idea for a adjustable crutch that allows the user to rise from a seated to standing position, the combination of developing the concept and instituting the mechanical components is far harder to replicate. Thus, it can be argued that although an average mechanic could have developed the adjustment mechanism utilized in Patent 4252138 and an average crutch designer could have proposed the design idea, the culmination of both the creativity and technology in a single design proposal allows for adherence to the nonobviousness stance.
