Homework due 1/28/11: Difference between revisions
From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
**Date issued: Feb 9, 1988 | **Date issued: Feb 9, 1988 | ||
== | ==Description== | ||
==Analysis== | ==Analysis== | ||
==The Evolution of Nonobviousness== | ==The Evolution of Nonobviousness== | ||
Revision as of 16:57, 27 January 2011
Using your patent from the homework due on Monday, obtain some (2 or 3 if they are of normal length) of the References Cited, preferably other patents. Using those references, would the patent you chose be patentable under the analysis of Hotchkiss or A&P? Would it satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103 under Lyon? If the answer is different, which I suspect would be the normal case, what evolution of the standards of nonobviousness (referred to in the old cases as inventivness or something similar) lead to the change? As a rule of thumb, I would say the analysis for each case would take about page, with perhaps a common page or two description of what the references disclose.
Patents Cited
- Patent 4480831: Exercise hoop having a counter [1]
- Date issued: Nov 6, 1984
- Patent 4723775: Hooped amusement device [2]
- Date issued: Feb 9, 1988
