Difference between revisions of "Riester: 3/23/11 Homework"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent.  The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent."  Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid as per 35 USCA section 102(b).
 
Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent.  The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent."  Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid as per 35 USCA section 102(b).
 +
 +
More specifically it deals with a patent dealt to BROS inc. for a Pneumatic Roller Compactor on an application filed  November 17, 1949.  This patent had only obvious differences from a design outlining an invention called ‘50 Ton Compactor With Oscillating Wheels,’ which had been publicly distributed from July 16, through July 24, 1948, 16 months prior to the date of application.  The invention was fully described and illustrated in the packet. 
 +
 +
Why this makes sense: Despite the fact that the invention described in the pamphlet mentioned seemingly had not been patented, the details had already been disclosed to the public.  Thus the public stands nothing to gain from a patent with only obvious differences from the ones printed and thus the applicant in this case is seeking economical monopoly for little to no cost, relatively speaking.

Latest revision as of 11:19, 23 March 2011

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit. BROS INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. BROWNING MANUFACTURING CO. and Shovel Supply Co., Inc., Appellees.


No. 17169.

May 27, 1963.

Bottom Line: Appeal of a ruling by a district court that held that a patent was invalid because it had been described in a pamphlet that published more than one year prior to the date of application of the patent. The US Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment, saying that the pamphlet had "sufficient particularity to enable one skilled in art of constructing patented article to reproduce the invention without having resort to the patent." Thus, again holding this patent to be invalid as per 35 USCA section 102(b).

More specifically it deals with a patent dealt to BROS inc. for a Pneumatic Roller Compactor on an application filed November 17, 1949. This patent had only obvious differences from a design outlining an invention called ‘50 Ton Compactor With Oscillating Wheels,’ which had been publicly distributed from July 16, through July 24, 1948, 16 months prior to the date of application. The invention was fully described and illustrated in the packet.

Why this makes sense: Despite the fact that the invention described in the pamphlet mentioned seemingly had not been patented, the details had already been disclosed to the public. Thus the public stands nothing to gain from a patent with only obvious differences from the ones printed and thus the applicant in this case is seeking economical monopoly for little to no cost, relatively speaking.