Difference between revisions of "Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. (KyleR)"
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search (Created page with "Overview Back to '''Course Notes (KyleR)'''") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Overview | Overview | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | *case decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 | ||
| + | *patent had been granted for "Means for Treating Bituminous Pavement" | ||
| + | **combines a pavement spreader and shaper with a radiant-heat burner to create a better bond between the old and new layer of pavement | ||
| + | *inventor sues for infringement when someone places a radiant-heat burner on a standard paving machine | ||
| + | *District Court: patent is invalid | ||
| + | *Court of Appeals: patent is valid | ||
| + | *Supreme Court: patent is invalid | ||
| + | Patent | ||
| + | ---- | ||
| + | *patentability is said to come from combination of heater and standard paving machine | ||
| + | *radiant-heat burner patented in 1956 by Schwank | ||
| + | *operation of the heater is not dependent on operation of the paving machine | ||
| − | + | Nonobviousness | |
| − | + | ---- | |
| + | *combination of heater and paving machine is a convenience; does not produce a "new or different function"; combination NOT greater than the sum of parts | ||
| + | *filled a long-felt want; commercial success | ||
| + | **does not prove nonobviousness | ||
Back to '''[[Course Notes (KyleR)]]''' | Back to '''[[Course Notes (KyleR)]]''' | ||
Latest revision as of 01:22, 31 January 2011
Overview
- case decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1969
- patent had been granted for "Means for Treating Bituminous Pavement"
- combines a pavement spreader and shaper with a radiant-heat burner to create a better bond between the old and new layer of pavement
- inventor sues for infringement when someone places a radiant-heat burner on a standard paving machine
- District Court: patent is invalid
- Court of Appeals: patent is valid
- Supreme Court: patent is invalid
Patent
- patentability is said to come from combination of heater and standard paving machine
- radiant-heat burner patented in 1956 by Schwank
- operation of the heater is not dependent on operation of the paving machine
Nonobviousness
- combination of heater and paving machine is a convenience; does not produce a "new or different function"; combination NOT greater than the sum of parts
- filled a long-felt want; commercial success
- does not prove nonobviousness
Back to Course Notes (KyleR)
