2/4/11 Homework (kyergler) : Critique of Graham case
Graham v. John Deere
Supporting Non-obviousness
There are two main points in the '798 patent that set it apart from prior art: 1) the vastly superior flexing qualities, and the complete position reversal of the shank and hinge plate compared to '811. Someone not educated in the art of plowing may not see the significant advantage of the '798 patent versus the '811 patent and Glencoe clamp device, but an expert in the field cannot deny the huge advantages that come out of the increase in flex.
Supporting Invalidity
The difference between the '811 patent and the '798 patent, according to the drawings, is the placement of the bolt hinge, and slight organizational arrangements surrounding the hinge. For all intensive purposes, both patents accomplish the same goal using the same technique, the only difference is a mild upgrade that more fully takes advantage of the bolt hinge on the plow. Considering the fact that '811 is prior art in this situation, the progression from '811 to '798 is well within the realm of obviousness for someone knowledgeable in the art of plowing. The '798 patent is one of novelty, but it is certainly not beyond the logical progression of tools from the '811 patent.
