In the United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit case Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb, the court decided the patent was to be upheld because it fulfilled the non-obviousness requirement put into law by the Patent Act of 1952 and the novelty and utility requirements. They decided the patent was not obvious because researchers had for years been trying to accomplish what the patent accomplished, and none before had been able to successfully do it. Under the requirements of this case, my patent would still be patentable.
The first patent for a skateboard braking system was filed in 1966 and others followed it, including my patent and its references. This demonstrates that there was a need for a skateboard braking system that inventors were trying to accomplish. Even though there were patents filed for skateboard braking systems, such as the pedal braking invention and the braking/steering invention, none of them were able to become the standard the way Lyons’s method became the standard procedure when he filed his patent. This means that my patent would still be valid since it tried to fulfill the need for a skateboard braking system in a new way and thus fulfilled the novelty and utility requirements.
The pedal braking invention and the braking/steering invention were different from my patent. They accomplished the same thing, stopping the skateboard, using different mechanical setups in similar methods. The pedal braking invention used a pedal pressed by the rider to activate the friction pads on the rear wheels of the skateboard. The braking/steering invention used an arm pressed by the rider to activate the brake shoes attached to a u-bar on the rear wheels of the skateboard. My patent used a shifting of the rider’s weight to activate the frame to stop the rear wheels of the skateboard. None of the previous patents used only a shifting of weight to effect braking, which means it was not obvious, which means my patent would still be patentable.