Difference between revisions of "Homework 2: Validity of "Combinations""

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "'''1. Patent 3676638: Plasma Spray Device and Method (1972)''' ''Summary:'' The some of the most prominent conditions which separate this earlier device from it's later cousin ...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''1. Patent 3676638: Plasma Spray Device and Method (1972)'''
 
'''1. Patent 3676638: Plasma Spray Device and Method (1972)'''
  
''Summary:''  
+
''Summary: 1972 v. 1988''  
The some of the most prominent conditions which separate this earlier device from it's later cousin (found in [[Homework 1: 1980-1990 Patent]]) are as follows:
+
The some of the most prominent conditions which separate this earlier device from its later cousin (found in [[Homework 1: 1980-1990 Patent]] and hereby referred to as "the 1988 device") are as follows:
  
* There are significantly more pieces used to assemble the device than in the later device
+
* There are significantly more pieces used to assemble the 1972 device than in the 1988 device
* The device takes the shape of a hand-held "gun" when fully assembled, whereas the later device is meant to be used in an automated machine
+
* The 1972 device takes the shape of a hand-held "gun" when fully assembled, whereas the 1988 device is meant to be used in an automated machine
* The material powder is inserted into the gas flow at an earlier point than in the later device  
+
* The material powder is inserted into the gas flow at an earlier point than in the 1988 device  
 
* Plates with helical holes are used to drive the pattern of the flow of gas through the nozzle instead of creating a vortex  
 
* Plates with helical holes are used to drive the pattern of the flow of gas through the nozzle instead of creating a vortex  
* The electric arc is created directly at the end of the cathode, rather than at the end of the nozzle
+
* The electric arc is created directly at the end of the cathode, rather than at the end of the nozzle in the 1988 device (which has "extended arc" in the patent title)
* The plasma spray gun can only spray powdered materials, whereas the later device can spray both powders and wires/thin plates
+
* The plasma spray gun can only spray powdered materials, whereas the 1988 device can spray both powders and wires/thin plates
* Geometries of the nozzles and internal cavities vary dramatically
+
* Geometries of the nozzles and internal cavities vary dramatically between the two devices
 +
* The velocity of the gas/material in the 1972 device is significantly lower than in the 1988 device
  
  
''Assessment under Hotchkiss v. Greenwood''
+
'''2. Patent 4095081: Electric Arc Metal Spraying Devices (1978)'''
  
  
''Assessment under A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.''
+
''Summary: 1978 v. 1988''  
 +
The some of the most prominent conditions which separate this device from the 1988 device are as follows:
  
 +
*
  
'''2. Patent 4095081: Electric Arc Metal Spraying Devices (1978)'''
 
  
 +
''Assessment under Hotchkiss v. Greenwood''
  
''Summary:''
+
Under the court ruling in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, inventions which are mere collection of "known" items are not considered patentable. In this specific case, it was in relation to a change in material. Applying this court decision to the 1988 patent with regard to the 1972 patent, I believe that the differences between the two devices are significant enough to constitute improvement worth of a patent.
  
  
''Assessment under Hotchkiss v. Greenwood''
+
''Assessment under A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.''
 
 
  
''Assessment under A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.''
+
Under the court ruling in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, inventions which are collections of "known" items are considered to be patentable, provided that the combination performs a different function than it otherwise had, or the improvements made in the combination are significant enough. Again, as the improvements are significant enough to warrant even a

Revision as of 20:08, 27 January 2011

1. Patent 3676638: Plasma Spray Device and Method (1972)

Summary: 1972 v. 1988 The some of the most prominent conditions which separate this earlier device from its later cousin (found in Homework 1: 1980-1990 Patent and hereby referred to as "the 1988 device") are as follows:

  • There are significantly more pieces used to assemble the 1972 device than in the 1988 device
  • The 1972 device takes the shape of a hand-held "gun" when fully assembled, whereas the 1988 device is meant to be used in an automated machine
  • The material powder is inserted into the gas flow at an earlier point than in the 1988 device
  • Plates with helical holes are used to drive the pattern of the flow of gas through the nozzle instead of creating a vortex
  • The electric arc is created directly at the end of the cathode, rather than at the end of the nozzle in the 1988 device (which has "extended arc" in the patent title)
  • The plasma spray gun can only spray powdered materials, whereas the 1988 device can spray both powders and wires/thin plates
  • Geometries of the nozzles and internal cavities vary dramatically between the two devices
  • The velocity of the gas/material in the 1972 device is significantly lower than in the 1988 device


2. Patent 4095081: Electric Arc Metal Spraying Devices (1978)


Summary: 1978 v. 1988 The some of the most prominent conditions which separate this device from the 1988 device are as follows:


Assessment under Hotchkiss v. Greenwood

Under the court ruling in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, inventions which are mere collection of "known" items are not considered patentable. In this specific case, it was in relation to a change in material. Applying this court decision to the 1988 patent with regard to the 1972 patent, I believe that the differences between the two devices are significant enough to constitute improvement worth of a patent.


Assessment under A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp.

Under the court ruling in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, inventions which are collections of "known" items are considered to be patentable, provided that the combination performs a different function than it otherwise had, or the improvements made in the combination are significant enough. Again, as the improvements are significant enough to warrant even a