User:Gtorrisi/homework2.html

Referenced Patents
The patent I have chosen to analyze is a combination of a backpack with a support system (should straps as well as a waist strap) where the waist belt portion is also a detachable harness. Several previous patents are referenced by this one.

One previous patent that is referenced is patent # 3132779, which is a “load carrier”. This is a device capable of carrying multiple items, and may be connected to a harness, particularly suitable for parachutists. The device and its attached parcels is easily released from the user. There are also leg loops which are secured at one end by passing a loop of material through a D ring and then inserting a pin through the loop of material. Since the leg loop is under tension, it remains attached.

Another patent of particular interest is patent # 3757893, which is a harness. The previously available harness styles were either very restrictive in the allowable motion of the user, uncomfortable for extended periods of time, or both. This harness had two independent leg loops (some old harnesses had just one large leg loop). There was also some padding on the harness to make it more comfortable to wear.

Two other patents which referenced are patent # 3516586, and 3840162. Both of these are for pack frames or components of backpack frames that include a waist strap to help distribute the load.

Hotchkiss Patentability
The Hotchkiss v. Greenwood case was about whether or not a doorknob, or other type of knob, was patentable. Neither the concept of the knob, the method of attachment, nor the materials used were new. However the use of clay as a knob instead of wood or metal was new. During the case it was argued that the use of clay should be patentable since it was a superior product compared with other knobs and thus had utility. In the end, it was decided that this was insufficient reasoning and not patentable since this was merely the substitution of one material for another, and therefore merely the work of the “skillful mechanic” and not that an inventor.

Under this court ruling, I believe that the patent I have chosen would still be patentable despite the aforementioned previous patents. While the one concept of having an easily detachable pack was known, it had been applied in a different fashion. The previous invention was for a completely releasable pack, whereas with this patent, only a portion, the climbing harness, was to be detached. Similarly, climbing harnesses, and backpacks with waist belts had been in existence prior to this invention, but they had never been combined in this fashion. Although the materials used were similar for each respective item, the true test is that this was a novel device with utility.