Anderson's Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Co. SKH

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 02:57, 4 February 2011 by Shockett (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Notes == *Case from 1969 *The District Court rejected respondent's claim of infringement, finding the patent invalid. The Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, reversed. Sup...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Notes

  • Case from 1969
  • The District Court rejected respondent's claim of infringement, finding the patent invalid. The Court of Appeals, by a divided vote, reversed. Supreme Court reverse the judgement if the Court of Appeals.
  • The placement of a radiant-heat burner upon the side of a standard bituminous paver is the central feature of respondent's patent.
  • The burner, by itself, was not patentable. So, does the combination of old elements create a valid patent?
    • The combination was reasonably obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art.
  • The combination was argued to fill a long-felt want and commercial success, but that "without invention will not make patentability."
  • The combination of old elements performed a useful function, but it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented. Was not a patent due to the "non-obvious" standard.