Difference between revisions of "Notes"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
*Non-obviousness
 
*Non-obviousness
Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966
+
*UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
 +
*Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966
  
 
Petitioner: Graham - sues John Deere for patent infringement
 
Petitioner: Graham - sues John Deere for patent infringement
Line 6: Line 7:
 
Device:  designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow
 
Device:  designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow
  
1955 - 5th circuit says valid -  "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way."
+
*1955 - 5th circuit says valid -  "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way."
1966 - 8th circuit says invalid - no new result in the combination
+
 
 +
*1966 - 8th circuit says invalid - no new result in the combination
 +
 
 +
Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid

Revision as of 01:05, 4 February 2011

  • Non-obviousness
  • UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
  • Argued October 14, 1965. Decided February 21, 1966

Petitioner: Graham - sues John Deere for patent infringement

Device: designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage to the plow

  • 1955 - 5th circuit says valid - "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way."
  • 1966 - 8th circuit says invalid - no new result in the combination

Held: The patents do not meet the test of the "nonobvious" nature of the "subject matter sought to be patented" to a person having ordinary skill in the pertinent art, set forth in 103 of the Patent Act of 1952, and are therefore invalid