User:Gallsup
== Homework 1: Due 24 January 2011 ==
Patent: 4737788 Helicopter Obstacle Detector Filed: 4 April 1985 Issued: 12 April 1988
Obstacle Detector for helicopters and other aircraft having rotary blades. The detector uses pulsed Doppler radar to sense any obstacles in the flight path of the helicopter of like aircraft. The pulsed Doppler radar is mounted adjacent to the tip of one of the helicopter or like aircraft rotor blades. The rotor blade tip velocity of the helicopter or like aircraft shifts the frequency of radar echoes. This allows pulsed Doppler radar techniques to be used so that the echoes from obstacles are distinguished from clutter. Information for this patent can be found here.[1]
== Homework 2:
Due 28 January 2011 ==
Patent: 4038656 Helicopter Discrimination Apparatus for the Murine Radar Filing Date: 27 March 1974 Issue Date: 26 July 1977
This apparatus uses radar doppler filtering to distinguish between a missile and ground clutter. This patent includes the detecting means receiving a doppler signal, means to provide output doppler signal, means to receive output doppler signal. The main difference between this patent and patent 4737788 is that the latter is for a pulsed Doppler radar and it senses all obstacles in the flight path not just distinguishing between missiles and ground clutter like patent 4038656 does. Information for patent 4038656 can be found here. [2]
Under the ruling in Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood (1850), which stated that if the improvement could be done by a mechanic of the field then the invention is not be patentable, I am not sure that this patent 4737788 would still be valid. With the improvements in radar sensing, it seems natural to have a need to sense obstacles in the flight path of an aircraft, especially because of the many collisions in the early years of flight. The difficulty might come in to how to attach the sensor so that it is able to sense all around the aircraft for any obstacle not just missiles like the invention of patent 4038656. The ruling does also deal with material change, and I assume that the improvement of patent 4038656 by patent 4737788 involves improvements in computer software and electrical components. However, these improvements did take many years and are not always as obvious as changing clay for wood or metal. For patent 4737788 to stay valid it would need to be determined that the improvements made are not simple and the details to accomplish this improvement are not obvious to an ordinary person in the field.
Under the ruling in A.&P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp (1950), which stated that a mere compilation of inventions which were already in common use, does not make that compilation patentable if benefit of the whole is not greater than the sum of its components, I think that the patent 4737788 is still valid. It seems that the invention of patent 4737788 is not a compilation of existing inventions but merely an improvement of patent 4038656. However, if a pulsed Doppler was already made for an airplane or other like aircraft, and the difficulty of attaching a doppler radar to the rotating blade was demonstrated as it is in patent 4038656, then under the ruling in the A.&P. case, the patent 4737788 would be invalid. For the patent 4737788 to be invalid with regards to this case, it would have to be shown that the invention of patent 4737788 was a compilation of existing inventions and that its function as a whole is not new or different from the functions of the parts used to make the invention.
Under the ruling of Lyon v Bausch & Lomb (1955), which stated that even though it was theoretically an obvious improvement on an existing invention the fact that many had tried to make the invention and had failed along with the great need for the invention, that it was patentable, I think that patent 4737788 would still be valid. There is always a great need to make air travel safer especially in low visibility and other bad flight conditions, which the invention of patent 4737788 does. Also, there is about a 10 year gap between the issuing of patent 4038656 and the filing of patent 4737788. Since the invention would be in such high demand, it would seem unlikely that the improvement made on the invention of patent 4038656 by the invention of patent 4737788 would be simple in practice since it did take over 10 years to accomplish.
The differences in the how the validity of patent 4737788 might be understood can be explained by the evolution of the idea of the patent requirement for nonobviousness. Hotchkiss v Greenwood emphasized the fact that if an invention was a simple logical step from an existing invention then it was not patentable. In this case the patent was for a clay doorknob and its components. However, the knob had been made previously from wood and metal and there had be differently shaped door knobs made from clay. The ruling was therefore that the clay door knobs were not patentable because the improvement is merely on an improvement in material and any ordinary mechanic of this background could make this change. In A.&P. Tea Co. v Supermarket Corp. the main emphasis was on if a combination of existing inventions is patentable. In this case a cashier's counter was the invention being disputed and it was shown that the only difference in the compilation of other inventions was an extension of the counter. The combination of inventions did not perform any new or different function either which would have made the court more likely to rule that it was patentable. In Lyon v Bausch & Lomb the main emphasis was on the need for the invention and the failed attempts of other inventors to do the same thing. The invention in this case was a process of coating an optical surface such as for a binocular. The way this was done was by heating the optical surface in a vacuum to rid it of water and grease, then vaporize "inorganic salt" in the vacuum while keeping the optical surface heated. The process is repeated until the desired thickness is reached. While this might have seemed obvious to someone in the field at that time, the fact is that no one was able to successfully do what Lyon did and there was great need in the military services especially the Navy.
Patent: 4275396 Helicopter Rotating Blade Detection System Filing Date: 12 October 1979 Issue Date: 23 June 1981
This patent is for an airborne pulse doppler radar that scans for any helicopters in the flight path. This patent includes the processors for detection which includes ones for transmitting and ones for receiving. It appears that the main difference between patent 4275396 and patent 4737788 is the ability of the later to distinguish the obstacles from clutter. However, the invention of patent 4275396 does include a means of inhibiting the transmitting processor from sending interference signals which can falsely identify a helicopter. Patent 4737788 appears to deal with all types of obstacles including those below whereas patent 4275396 appears to only deal with other helicopters in the flight path. The other difference is in order for the helicopter to be detected by the invention of patent 4275396 it must have a processor as well. This is not seem to be the case with patent 4737788. Information on patent 4275396 can be found here. [3]
Under Hotchkiss v Greenwood, it could seem like the invention of patent 4737788 was an obvious improvement on the invention of patent 4275396. The difficulty is clearly in being able to detect an obstacle not just a helicopter without having the processor on that obstacle. This however, was demonstrated by patent 4038656. So then the main distinction might be attaching an invention like that of patent 4038656 in a manner like the invention of patent 4275396 is attached to the aircraft. Also, there might be a distinction in just looking for missiles versus looking for any type of obstacle including other helicopters. Looking for one specific object like a missile which is usually about the same shape and has the same speed, at least for its size, seems like it would be easier to detect than using a system that searches for any obstacle, thus showing the difficulty in inventing an invention like that of patent 4737788. However, I think that under the Hotchkiss ruling, patent 4737788 would be considered invalid because they would think that the existing patents 4038656 and 4275396 would make it easier to invent and invention like that of patent 4737788.
Under A.&P. Tea Co. v Supermarket Corp., patent 4737788 would still be valid. It is not just a compilation of the inventions of patents 4038656 and 4275396 but an improvement of them. Also, the invention of patent 4737788 does have a new and different function than the functions of the inventions of patents 4038656 and 4275396. If the invention of patent 4737788 was just a combination of the inventions of patents 4038656 and 4275396, the invention of patent 4737788 would just be able to detect other helicopters which had a processor on it and missiles both in the flight path and the sensor would be attached to a blade. However, it seems that the invention of patent 4737788 allows any object to be detected in the flight path without it having a processor on it.
Under Lyon v Baush & Lomb, it seems that the patent 4737788 would still be valid. The need for improved detection of obstacles in the flight path can be shown by the issuing of patent 4275396. However, the limitations on what the sensor can detect by the invention of patent 4275396 also shows the need for an invention like that of patent 4737788. Also, the failure to expand the sensing abilities on the invention of patent 4275396 shows the difficulty in inventing something like that in patent 4737788 which has more expansive sensing capabilities. Patent 4275396 also shows the inability of the inventors of that patent to come up with an invention that had better sensing abilities suggesting the difficulty in inventing the improvement made by the invention of patent 4737788.
