User:Kyle Tennant

Case Reading Summaries

The Purpose of Patents

Case 1: Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft, Inc. (1989)

Novelty and Nonobviousness

Case 2: Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850)
Case 3: A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (1950)
Case 4: Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co. (1955)
Case 5: Graham v. John Deere (1966)
Case 6: US v. Adams (1966)
Case 7: Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (1969)
Case 8: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (2007)

Patentable Subject Matter

Case 9: Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)
Case 10: Diamond v. Diehr (1981)
Case 11: Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (1992)
Case 12: State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. (1998)
Case 13: Bilski v. Kappos (2010)

Statutory Bars

Case 14: Egbert v. Lippmann (1881)
Case 15: Metallizing Engineering Co., Inc. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., Inc. (1946)
Case 16: D.L. Auld Co. v. Chroma Graphics Corp. (1983)
Case 17: Elizabeth v. American Nicholson Pavement Company (1877)
Case 18: Lough v. Brunswick Corp. (1996)
Case 19: UMC Electronics Co. v. U.S. (1987)
Case 20: Pfaff vs. Wells Electronics (1998)

Class Notes

Notes from 3/9/2011
Notes form 3/11/2011

Homeworks

Homework 1: Clutch And Brake Assembly and Production Method
Homework 2: Supplementary Patents and a Discussion of Patentability
Homework 3: Examining Nonobviousness
Homework 4: Defining Nonobviousness
Homework 5: Nonobviousness Paper