HW2 (Fernando Rodriguez)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 11:00, 28 January 2011 by Fernando Rodriguez (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The purpose of this document is to dwell on weather or no patent US4529393 for a infinately variable belt transmission, would satisfy the requirments for non obviousness outlined...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

The purpose of this document is to dwell on weather or no patent US4529393 for a infinately variable belt transmission, would satisfy the requirments for non obviousness outlined in two different Supreme Court rulings, those outlined in Hotchkiss as well as A&P and those in Lyon.

The patent references several different patents in its background section. Most important to the analysis of whether or not the previous patent was valid are patents US3969958 and US4433594. One of them for an output split type hydrostatic transmission and the other one a variable pulley transmission.

The output split type hydrostatic transmission functions by a system of gears (differential) and a set of possitive displacement hydraulic motors that control the input speeds into the differential which allows a summation or substtraction of the speeds allow for forward an reverse speeds, this device also uses a hydraluc clutch for engaging the main shaft.

The variable pulley mechanism patent describes a mechanism that uses a typical set off pulleys that change their effective diameters of the pulleys and therefore its transmission ratio. The improvement of this mechanism over other pulley-belt CVTs, lies ina slippage clutch that prevents the overtorquing of the motor.

In the first case in ssjgka aasngsao it was decided that a combination of elements is usually valid for obtaining a patent. The requirment for non obviousness being that a worker of average skill in the art would not be able to create the aforementioned product. Also it was decided that the action obtained from the combination of the parts should be greater in utility (as in exceed) those of the parts.

Observing the previous patents it would be decidded that the proposed patent for a infinately variable transmission would not be valid so much as it is only a combination of the previous patents. The proposed system has a different way to drive the pulleys by ways of a hydaulic system that dirves the pulleys closer or farther apart. As it was stablished before both the belt pulleys and their changing diameters, as well as hydraluically actuationg them. The main improvement then lies with using a different gear system than the previously suggested differential (planetary) system. In this case this would be deemed as a mere substitution to not as important part. Furthermore at this time it would be possible that this woul dbe in violation of the previous pattent. Furthermore all of the parts that compose the system where previously contained in other inventions. The main improvement on previous work not being better performance