Difference between revisions of "User:E W Hitchler"

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
The point of this patent was to improve the electrical brush.  They wanted the brush to be capable of operating at high current densities and high speeds with a reduction in the loss of amps as well as low noise.  They wanted to reduce the mechanical load.  They wanted to incorporate an electrical connection to stationary, moving, and rotating parts.  They wanted to have the brush capable of being used with and without lubrication.  They wanted to have a new method for the production of multifibers that will reduce friction and allow fibers to individually flex.
 
The point of this patent was to improve the electrical brush.  They wanted the brush to be capable of operating at high current densities and high speeds with a reduction in the loss of amps as well as low noise.  They wanted to reduce the mechanical load.  They wanted to incorporate an electrical connection to stationary, moving, and rotating parts.  They wanted to have the brush capable of being used with and without lubrication.  They wanted to have a new method for the production of multifibers that will reduce friction and allow fibers to individually flex.
 
  
 
1/28/11
 
1/28/11
Line 9: Line 8:
  
 
With the analysis of A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. the second patent I found from my patent of the Electric Brush would be patentable as well.  The patent is 3,254,189 for Electrical Contact Members having a Plurality of Refractory Metal Fibers Embedded therein.  The patent is similar to the other patent in the sense it is trying to improve something that already exists.  Now the withe A & P case thats what the invention was, however, the inventor merely merged existing things together and then just lengthened the counter.  That was a great idea to help things go faster, but I don't think that it was very novel.  Then, sometimes there are lots of patents that are improving an existing idea already, so it is hard to determine what does count and what doesn't count.  And with the nonobiviousness rule, it goes along with what I said for the earlier patent.  I do  believe any regular person skilled in the art can come up with such an idea, but that is why the nonobviousness rule has evolved and has some give in my opinion.
 
With the analysis of A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. the second patent I found from my patent of the Electric Brush would be patentable as well.  The patent is 3,254,189 for Electrical Contact Members having a Plurality of Refractory Metal Fibers Embedded therein.  The patent is similar to the other patent in the sense it is trying to improve something that already exists.  Now the withe A & P case thats what the invention was, however, the inventor merely merged existing things together and then just lengthened the counter.  That was a great idea to help things go faster, but I don't think that it was very novel.  Then, sometimes there are lots of patents that are improving an existing idea already, so it is hard to determine what does count and what doesn't count.  And with the nonobiviousness rule, it goes along with what I said for the earlier patent.  I do  believe any regular person skilled in the art can come up with such an idea, but that is why the nonobviousness rule has evolved and has some give in my opinion.
 +
 +
2/4/11
 +
 +
The Graham 811' patent is obviously similar to the Graham V. John Deere case.  The 811' patent states "The spring 66 thus retained in compression to keep the head 72 in rocking engagement with grove 68 of the gripping portion or face 63 of the fulcrum plate 63 and the fulcrum plate in contact with the lower face 63 of the end portion of the shank 33 and the upper face 34 of the end portion of the shank 33 against the clamping portion 42...The ground working tools are thus resilently supported between the clamping embers or parts and are adapted to rock thereon as permitted by action of the springs to effect pumping action of the ground working tools incidental to drag of the tools through the ground and resiliency of the compression springs so as to produce the furrows the and chisel cuts indicated at "a" and forming the pockets indicated "b" in Figs 4 and 5 of the drawings." 
 +
The pumping action of the spring is to give into the conditions of rocky soil and "adapt".  Furthermore, the article later states "the fulcrum member and extending through an elongated opening in said shank and through the shank to said bracket and provide sufficient longitudinal relative movement between the shank and fulcrum member to accommodate oscillation of the shank, and a spring having one end engaged with said rod and the other end engaged with the bracket for yielding permitting rocking movement of the fulcrum member for effecting said pumping action of the ground working device." 
 +
The patent is very obvious to the device by John Deere, which is "a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage"
 +
 +
However, the patent maybe nonobvious because John Deere is using a "clamp" and not a spring.  Plus they say it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way."  Which if it is, its advancing and promoting the Progress of.. Useful Arts.  Furthermore, it seems that Graham's 811' patent is more of a concept for the whole plow and not specifically the absorption spring, but maybe I am misreading the patent. 
 +
Though it is hard to say because the products are very similar, but if anything John Deere is perfecting the concept with an more effective way.

Revision as of 00:03, 4 February 2011

Electric Brush

The point of this patent was to improve the electrical brush. They wanted the brush to be capable of operating at high current densities and high speeds with a reduction in the loss of amps as well as low noise. They wanted to reduce the mechanical load. They wanted to incorporate an electrical connection to stationary, moving, and rotating parts. They wanted to have the brush capable of being used with and without lubrication. They wanted to have a new method for the production of multifibers that will reduce friction and allow fibers to individually flex.

1/28/11

With the analysis of A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. the first patent I found from my patent of the Electric Brush would be patentable. The patent is 3,357,824 for Copper Alloys. The Copper alloy has high conductivity and with such small and uniform grain size which gave it superior ductility. The invention is to improve the the copper base alloy to give it high ductility but still attaining high electrical/thermal conductivity and strength. The analysis of the A & P case was improving a system but the court said that this was just throwing a bunch of things that existed and lengthening the counter. While it sounds simple, this invention is very scientific and not just any person can add elements to the alloy to help increase the conductivity. I do feel that it would satisfy the nonobviousness requirement of 35 USC 103. I do think that any ordinary person in the skill would be able to this invention because the work is very technical. However, as our society has progressed the nonobviousness rule has changed. Obviously, not everyone can do something that someone else can do, so that is why i think that the nonobviousness rule has some give for certain situations.

With the analysis of A. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. the second patent I found from my patent of the Electric Brush would be patentable as well. The patent is 3,254,189 for Electrical Contact Members having a Plurality of Refractory Metal Fibers Embedded therein. The patent is similar to the other patent in the sense it is trying to improve something that already exists. Now the withe A & P case thats what the invention was, however, the inventor merely merged existing things together and then just lengthened the counter. That was a great idea to help things go faster, but I don't think that it was very novel. Then, sometimes there are lots of patents that are improving an existing idea already, so it is hard to determine what does count and what doesn't count. And with the nonobiviousness rule, it goes along with what I said for the earlier patent. I do believe any regular person skilled in the art can come up with such an idea, but that is why the nonobviousness rule has evolved and has some give in my opinion.

2/4/11

The Graham 811' patent is obviously similar to the Graham V. John Deere case. The 811' patent states "The spring 66 thus retained in compression to keep the head 72 in rocking engagement with grove 68 of the gripping portion or face 63 of the fulcrum plate 63 and the fulcrum plate in contact with the lower face 63 of the end portion of the shank 33 and the upper face 34 of the end portion of the shank 33 against the clamping portion 42...The ground working tools are thus resilently supported between the clamping embers or parts and are adapted to rock thereon as permitted by action of the springs to effect pumping action of the ground working tools incidental to drag of the tools through the ground and resiliency of the compression springs so as to produce the furrows the and chisel cuts indicated at "a" and forming the pockets indicated "b" in Figs 4 and 5 of the drawings." The pumping action of the spring is to give into the conditions of rocky soil and "adapt". Furthermore, the article later states "the fulcrum member and extending through an elongated opening in said shank and through the shank to said bracket and provide sufficient longitudinal relative movement between the shank and fulcrum member to accommodate oscillation of the shank, and a spring having one end engaged with said rod and the other end engaged with the bracket for yielding permitting rocking movement of the fulcrum member for effecting said pumping action of the ground working device." The patent is very obvious to the device by John Deere, which is "a device designed to absorb shock from plow shanks in rocky soil to prevent damage"

However, the patent maybe nonobvious because John Deere is using a "clamp" and not a spring. Plus they say it produces an "old result in a cheaper and otherwise more advantageous way." Which if it is, its advancing and promoting the Progress of.. Useful Arts. Furthermore, it seems that Graham's 811' patent is more of a concept for the whole plow and not specifically the absorption spring, but maybe I am misreading the patent. Though it is hard to say because the products are very similar, but if anything John Deere is perfecting the concept with an more effective way.