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)