Feb. 4: Corporate Council SKH
Relevant Patents
- Glencoe/Rolf patent 2739518 (Issued in 1956, however, the device was marketed in May 1951, before Graham's '798 patent was filed)
- Graham '811
- Graham '798 "Clamp for vibrating Shank Plows"
- Pfeifer Patent
Argument for Obviousness
Graham's second patent was for a plow that was heavily based upon the earlier '798 patent. There are a few differences, but basic functionality remains the same. Even the stated goals of the patent were the same, with a few minor design tweaks that improved usability. The differences between the two patents amounts to the placement of the hinge plate with respect to the shank; this minor difference can be attributed to a recombination of prior art and not a wholly new invention because each part accomplishes the same task as it did previously. Such a combination was rejected in Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., and ought to be rejected here for the same reason. In that decision, the court asked "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." This new patent is simply a predictable use of the prior elements and, under § 103, it ought to be rejected.
Argument for Non-Obviousness
When debating non-obviousness, 3 subjects must be studied: -1) The scope and content of the prior art; -2) The difference between the prior art and the patent in question; -3) The level of ordinary skill in the art. It can be argued that in the case of '798 these criteria have been satisfied and the patent was nonobvious.
