{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

GallagherMorrill_IPSurvey_Fa06_Answer3

GallagherMorrill_IPSurvey_Fa06_Answer3 - Professor 10 Exam...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Professor Robert... 10: Exam Name: Instructor: (Exam Number) IP_Law_Survey Professor Robert B. Morrill Page 1 of 1 Exam taken with SofTest v8.1
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
ID IP_Law_Survey Professor Robert 1) Patent Question Question 1 Part A Under Section 103 of the Patent Act, a patent will be invalid if the subject-matter is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court in John Deere provided a four factor test to assess obviousness. First, determine the scope and content of the prior art. This factor is analyzed using Section 102 of the Patent Act, The Chapman puzzle was invented in 1880 which was prior to Larry's - invention and patent application. Since Larry played with the Chapman puzzle as a child and assuming Larry lived in the United States, the puzzle is prior art under 102(a) because it was known and used by others in the US. Additionally, the Chapman puzzle is prior art under 102 (b) since it was in public use more than one year prior to the date of Larry's patent application (09/12/69) The Chapman puzzle may be prior art under (g) if the puzzle was invented in the US. There are not any facts to support 102(d) or (e). The Gustafson puzzle is prior art under 102(b) because the Gustafson patent was issued in 1963 which was more than a year before -- the date of Larry's patent application in 1969. ~dditionally, the Gustafson puzzle is prior art under 102(9), because it was invented in 1961 before Larry invented his model in 1968. There is no information to support any other parts of 102. Second, ascertain the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue. The claim is a three-dimensional cubic puzzle formed of 8 small cubes which move in relation to each other. The Chapman puzzle is a two-dimensional square puzzle with 15 interlocking squares and a Page 1 of 13
Image of page 2
(Question 1 continued) Professor Robert.. space left free. The dimensional aspects, the number of pieces, and how the pieces move are different. The Gustafson puzzle is a globe while Larry's claim is for a cubic puzzle. The pieces move similarly in both Third, determine the level of ordinary skill in the art. The court would probably find that puzzle .-J makers were people of ordinary skill in the art. Since both pieces of prior art are puzzles, a pu~j;~;~;::~~:sumed to know of both. Larry might argue that a person of ordinary skill in the art is a toy maker. If he wins, then a toy maker would probably not be assumed to know about the t:~~~~~ of prior art. '1 #-~..ol ,/ Fourth, utilize secondary considerations. Here, Larry has never sold his patented product, but he has an public and thus not obvious. Lj ~ . The federal courts impose a fifth factor: look for a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the prior art. Larry will argue that the Chapman puzzle alone does not suggest creating a three-dimensional puzzle with interlocking parts and the Gustafson puzzle does not in any way suggest that the puzzle could be made into a cube. Ideal will argue that Chapman square puzzle combined with the interlocking nature of Gustafson puzzle make it readily apparent to combine the two. Specifically, the two pieces of prior art suggest that a square,
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern