RPC:HW due 2-4-11

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 22:23, 7 February 2011 by Rcalkin (talk | contribs) (→‎Counseling for Graham's validity due to 103)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Counseling for Graham's validity due to 103

As one fluent in the state of the art of mechanical engineering, I have concluded that Graham's clamp is a valid patent. Plowing is an activity which has its efficiency hampered each time the blade comes across an obstruction or resistance due to dirt. Graham's innovation of adding a spring clamp apparatus which articulates the blade to pass over obstruction increases the overall productivity of tool. Not only was improvement incorporated in the claim, but the precise design of the components such as the size and strength of the spring to have the plow properly articulate show adequate knowledge of the art and obvious labor in its formulation.

Counseling for Graham's invalidity due to 103

There are two main points of invalidity that I can see from the patents of Graham's clamp and the Glencoe Clamp. The first of which is that the Glencoe clamp is clearly employed in its entirety in for the fastening to the frame of the plow which is half of the invention's duty, as noted by number 38 in the figures. The other point of invalidity is that, as an expert in the art of mechanical engineering, I do not see any sort of ingenious leap to warrant a monopoly on this idea. For a simple problem that a plow gets snagged by an obstruction in the dirt, the logical next action is to lift the back blade to go over it in order to proceed, thus fabricating an articulating hinge which would necessarily require a spring to return to position would be obvious.