Difference between revisions of "U.S. v. Adams (KyleR)"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "Overview ---- *decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1966 *companion case to Graham v. John Deere *Adams is suing U.S. Government for patent infringement *claim upheld by Trial Commis...")
 
Line 22: Line 22:
 
*Skrivanoff patent - a battery designed to give intermittent service; requires an acidic electrolyte; attempts at implementation were unsuccessful.
 
*Skrivanoff patent - a battery designed to give intermittent service; requires an acidic electrolyte; attempts at implementation were unsuccessful.
  
 +
Novelty
 +
----
 +
*even though elements of Adams' battery may have been known, they were never used in the way Adams used them.
 +
 +
Utility
 +
----
 +
*the Government admits that Adams' battery shows operating advantages over others.
 +
 +
Nonobviousness
 +
----
 +
*Adams' invention went against two norms:
 +
**not practical for batteries to operate on an open circuit and heated in use
 +
**water can only be used when combined with other electrolytes that damage magnesium
 +
*experts expressed disbelief at Adams' battery
 +
*experts recognized the significance of the invention
 +
*experts have patented improvements to Adams' battery
  
  

Revision as of 00:55, 31 January 2011

Overview


  • decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 1966
  • companion case to Graham v. John Deere
  • Adams is suing U.S. Government for patent infringement
  • claim upheld by Trial Commissioner and Court of Claims
  • Supreme Court affirmed earlier decision

Description of the Patent


  • issued to Adams in 1943
  • a non-rechargeable electrical battery using one magnesium and one cuprous chloride electrode that uses water as an electrolyte
    • manufactured and distributed in a dry condition and activated by addition of water
  • while the claims do not make mention of the battery using a water electrolyte, this can be assumed from the specifications submitted with the patent application.

Prior Art


  • Marie Davy cell - was probably capable of working with pure water; does not pursue the idea.
  • Wood patent - introduces magnesium as an electrode material; does not make mention of using it with cuprous chloride or a water electrolyte.
  • Codd treatise - says magnesium would be a theoretically desirable electrode; does not attempt to implement.
  • Wensky patent - introduced cuprous chloride as an electrode; does not use with Mg or water electrolyte.
  • Skrivanoff patent - a battery designed to give intermittent service; requires an acidic electrolyte; attempts at implementation were unsuccessful.

Novelty


  • even though elements of Adams' battery may have been known, they were never used in the way Adams used them.

Utility


  • the Government admits that Adams' battery shows operating advantages over others.

Nonobviousness


  • Adams' invention went against two norms:
    • not practical for batteries to operate on an open circuit and heated in use
    • water can only be used when combined with other electrolytes that damage magnesium
  • experts expressed disbelief at Adams' battery
  • experts recognized the significance of the invention
  • experts have patented improvements to Adams' battery



Return to Course Notes (KyleR)