1-31-11

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 13:33, 31 January 2011 by Rcalkin (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

john deere: said something for first time since act of 1952

about chisel plow that has spring to bounce on rocks

got to supreme court by circuit courts conflict, opposite decisions

amici curae- friend on the court- speak on the behalf but not a party involved.

first time they deal with 103

103 agrees with 102 Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.

did they due this?

Did an engineering analysis, and secondary considerations.

in the end, flipped two pieces which seemed obvious

first time refer 103 to constitution.

Natural right-attribute of being a free human being, getting a patent on an idea is not a natural right,

1. shouldnt give monopolies 2. ideas are something you cant control, must share, undisclosed

the court thinks law is same as 1850, even though wording is different.

law doesnt exist in what is written but also and interpretation

goodwine from iowa chuck represented louisiana

napoleonic code-louisana common law- general notions of contract

NC-more explicitly written

section VI- engineering analysis

lawyers decided obviousness, skepticism

file wrapper-apply for patent, 1. want patent to be a broad as possible,2.so write intentional ambitious to hear reasons for unpatentability. Series of back and forth of concessions and criticism if the file wrapper is used in court, may not contradict former concessions.

sprayer: rim/thread and gap/seal were patentable. courts ruled invalid. there was a need for this-2ndary leaking was not important enough.

obviousness is an engineering question.

us v adams.

adams had patent, sued government for infringement, argued for patent was invalid.

conclusion-patent was valid.

wet battery-electrolyte-between anode and cathode. provides fuctions without acids, doesnt erode. constant potential,patentability shall not be negatived... means flash of genius isnt required, may be done by hard work. wide temperature. drawback-couldnt stop reaction.

Prior arts- wood, codd, skrinoff, all had patents. None implied water could be used and each and different metals than cuprousflouride and magnesium.

lost by 102-novelty. No one had exact combo, biggest factor. 103- not obvious. if invention was subsitution unexpected results not possible, experts didnt believe him, people innovated after him.