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
