Difference between revisions of "Homework 3 - pfleury"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with " == Argument for Invalidity due to Obviousness == Patent 2,627,798 - filed by William T. Graham in 1951 - was an updated version of a patent 2,493,811 - which was also filed by ...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
 
== Argument for Invalidity due to Obviousness ==
 
== Argument for Invalidity due to Obviousness ==
  
Line 6: Line 5:
 
== Argument for Non-Obviousness ==
 
== Argument for Non-Obviousness ==
  
The case for non-obviousness '798 could, however, be made due to the additional capabilities of the new patent over '811.
+
The case for non-obviousness '798 could, however, be made due to the additional capabilities of the new patent over '811.  '798 is capable of plowing with less wear and less work, and more easily deals with obstructions found in the earth.  The new design, although a seemingly simple variation, has a significant advantage over the previous iteration.  The fact that it has these additional capabilities shows that the new patent is more than just a rearrangement or substitution, and thus supports its non-obviousness.

Latest revision as of 12:29, 7 February 2011

Argument for Invalidity due to Obviousness

Patent 2,627,798 - filed by William T. Graham in 1951 - was an updated version of a patent 2,493,811 - which was also filed by Mr. Graham in 1947. '798 was filed to protect an improvement that Graham had made upon his precious invention, and therefore it concerned a very similar device. The '798 vibrating plow clamp allowed for a different mounting of the plow shank - with the pivot point above the shank rather than below as in '811. This was the most significant difference between the two, and because it only involves the swapping and changing of hardware, '798 should be invalid. The adjustment should have easily been conceived and made by a skilled mechanic. The main subject matter of '798 is present in '811 and another, much older patent - the Glencoe clamp device.

Argument for Non-Obviousness

The case for non-obviousness '798 could, however, be made due to the additional capabilities of the new patent over '811. '798 is capable of plowing with less wear and less work, and more easily deals with obstructions found in the earth. The new design, although a seemingly simple variation, has a significant advantage over the previous iteration. The fact that it has these additional capabilities shows that the new patent is more than just a rearrangement or substitution, and thus supports its non-obviousness.