Arguing both sides of Deere (Homework 3)

Patent is NOT valid

It is important to note that the claimed invention is a combination of parts which previously existed. There is no patent claim on an item, it is a claim on the combination of previously known items. When this is the case, precedent dictates that the formulation of this item be nonobvious to those of sufficient skill in the area.

The fact is that a previously patented invention by Graham was identical to the current patent save only two differences 1. a translation of a joint and 2. the inversion of a piece. These small changes offere advantages over the previous models and were met with commercial success. However this does not warrant patentablility.

It is clear that the "improvement" of the previously patented device was not an invention, but simply a slight alteration of procedure. A skilled worker in the area knows that there were fatigue issues in the original design adn that the plow would retract if it was simply hinged the other way. Limiting fatugue and the previous invention were both extremely evident in the art, therefore the alteration should be considered obvious under S 103 to someone reasonably skilled in the art.