Homework 2: Validity of "Combinations"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 19:56, 27 January 2011 by Mzahm (talk | contribs) (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 ...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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 (found in Homework 1: 1980-1990 Patent) are as follows:

  • There are significantly more pieces used to assemble the device than in the later 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 material powder is inserted into the gas flow at an earlier point than in the later 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
  • The plasma spray gun can only spray powdered materials, whereas the later device can spray both powders and wires/thin plates
  • Geometries of the nozzles and internal cavities vary dramatically


Assessment under Hotchkiss v. Greenwood


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


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


Summary:


Assessment under Hotchkiss v. Greenwood


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