Difference between revisions of "Riester: 2/4/11 Homework"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798 ==
 
== The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798 ==
 +
Plowing fields has been integral to the farming done by humans for nearly as long as they have farmed, and certainly, nearly as long as they have plowed, they have encountered rocky fields.  Naturally, older plows were static structures that were inflexible upon contact with some rock or other obstacle.  As such, many plows doubtlessly broke or were ruined for this reason.  Thus it can be argued, because humans have been plowing for so long, and encountering these problems, any improvement in this field can hardly be considered obvious.  Surely, this has been a problem people have sought to deal with the centuries without any reliable notion of how to do it.  This is the greatest argument for the nonobviousness of Graham's '798 patent.  As it has been said "Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy."  As in the case of Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co 224 F.2d, 530, althought dubbed "secondary considerations" these can sometimes be a sufficient test for nonobviousness.  Although changes in the '798 patent may seem minimal, the new design greatly steadies the shank, as well as reduces much of the wear in the previous design.  Both these features and key to the robustness of any design.  Although the invention is a combination of previously known elements, it is hardly a trivial one.   
  
 
== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham '798 ==
 
== The Case for the Obviousness of Graham '798 ==
 
+
merely a combo of previously known elements.  the one supposed benefit wasnt even mentioned in the patent application.  it is an obvious idea to someone of ordinary skill in the arts.
 +
, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
 +
free flex theory was an afterthought. not vital to the invention.
  
 
==== References ====
 
==== References ====

Revision as of 10:21, 7 February 2011

The Case for the Nonobviousness of Graham '798

Plowing fields has been integral to the farming done by humans for nearly as long as they have farmed, and certainly, nearly as long as they have plowed, they have encountered rocky fields. Naturally, older plows were static structures that were inflexible upon contact with some rock or other obstacle. As such, many plows doubtlessly broke or were ruined for this reason. Thus it can be argued, because humans have been plowing for so long, and encountering these problems, any improvement in this field can hardly be considered obvious. Surely, this has been a problem people have sought to deal with the centuries without any reliable notion of how to do it. This is the greatest argument for the nonobviousness of Graham's '798 patent. As it has been said "Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances [383 U.S. 1, 18] surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy." As in the case of Lyon v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co 224 F.2d, 530, althought dubbed "secondary considerations" these can sometimes be a sufficient test for nonobviousness. Although changes in the '798 patent may seem minimal, the new design greatly steadies the shank, as well as reduces much of the wear in the previous design. Both these features and key to the robustness of any design. Although the invention is a combination of previously known elements, it is hardly a trivial one.

The Case for the Obviousness of Graham '798

merely a combo of previously known elements. the one supposed benefit wasnt even mentioned in the patent application. it is an obvious idea to someone of ordinary skill in the arts. , if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. free flex theory was an afterthought. not vital to the invention.

References

Graham '798: [1]
Graham '811: [2]
Pfeifer '451: [3]