1. Priority, Intro to 103 Prof. Merges – Intro to IP 1.26.10

2. Novelty vs. statutory bars Novelty: who was first? (Measured from date of invention) Statutory bar: did you file on time? (Measured from date of filing)

3. § 102. Novelty and loss of right to patent A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was known or used by others … before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or (b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication …, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or....

4. Statutory bars v. novelty – 102(a) – Novelty; 102(b) – Statutory bars – Different as to (1) who may create prior art; (2) the categories of prior art; and (3) the critical date for determining prior art

5. Statutory Bar Dates One Year Grace Period Dec. 20, 1996 Patent Application Jones Oct. 1995 Dec. 19, 1995 Jones Dec. 19, 1996 Section 102(b) BarOne Day Gap

6. Egbert v. Lippmann Statutory bars v. novelty – 102(a) – Novelty; 102(b) – Statutory bars – Different as to (1) who may create prior art; (2) the categories of prior art; and (3) the critical date for determining prior art

7. Egbert v. Lippmann Why not a novelty case? What are the essential facts: use a timeline

8. Egbert (cont’d) Conception, Jan – May 1855 R to P: May, 1855 (?) 1858: Second pair of springs Patent app filed: March 1866

9. 5/1855 The “Critical Date” for the Patent Application Barnes Actually Files Patent Application 1856 Frances Lee Begins “Public Use” 3/18661855

10. Conclusion “The inventor slept on his rights for 11 years...” –

11. Samuel F. Miller, on Court 1860- 1890

12. Miller Dissent ‘‘It may well be imagined that a prohibition to the party so permitted [to use the springs] against her use of the steel spring to public observation, would have been supposed to be a piece of irony.’’ 104 U.S. (14 Otto), at 339.

13. 35 USC § 102(g)(1) and (2) (g)(1) Inventor establishes [prior invention in an interference contest] and has not abandoned, suppressed or concealed...” (g)(2) Invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed or concealed it.”

14. Griffith v. Kanamaru Conception Jun. 30, 1981 Reduction to Practice Jan. 11, 1984 Filed Nov. 17, 1982 Griffith Kanamaru

15. Griffith v. Kanamaru Conception Jun. 30, 1981 Reduction to Practice Jan. 11, 1984 Reasonable Diligence? Filed Nov. 17, 1982 Griffith Kanamaru

16. Diligence Does not break diligence: –(1) poverty and illness (generally a valid excuse for lapses in diligence if the circumstance really do prevent work on the invention); –(2) regular employment; and –(3) overworked patent attorney (excuse for delay in achieving constructive RTP). Does constitute a break in diligence: –(1) Attempts by a university research to get outside funding (at least where sufficient funding is available inside the university), see Griffith v. Kanamaru; –(2) Attempts to get commercial orders; –(3) doubts about value or feasibility of invention; and –(4) work on other unrelated inventions.

17. Section 103 Nonobviousness

18. Why not permit trivial patents? Profusion of Paltry Patents: –Each patent individually will not impose significant output constraints, but... Economically Significant Patents: –Technical Triviality  Economic Triviality –Thus, a patent on an obvious development may impose significant output constraints.

19. –Policy 2: Obvious patents may compromise the incentives to make nonobvious inventions. Technically and economically trivial developments. –Policy: Preventing “thickets” of patents; increasing search costs for other inventors and businesses.

20. 35 USC Sec 103 § 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.

21. Graham v. John Deere Is it obvious to move the hinge plate from position A under the shank to position 1 above the shank? A B C 1 3 2

22. Graham’s ‘811 Patent Graham began marketing the clamp in the late 1940s or early 1950s, and continued producing it, with some modifications, for at least a decade and a half. Some flaws became apparent with the design over time: –The shank would rub against the fixed upper plate of the clamp and cause wear. This wear was troublesome because the plate was connected directly to the frame of the plow and was difficult to replace. –The shank was held within the clamp only by the spring rod with a large hole. As it was pulled backwards, it would cause wear and damage in the spring rod.

23. First solution to shank-breakage problem: reinforcing brace clamp

24. Graham’s Spring Clamp Graham’s second attempt at solution was more successful. He added a spring mounting so that the clamp would give way when the forces on the shank were too great. This invention successfully reduced bending and breaking of plow parts in rocky soil. This invention also produced vibratory action that created alternating pockets and ridges that were capable of storing moisture that could sustain crops during dry periods.

25. Graham’s ‘798 Patent Wear against upper plate and spring rod provided impetus for design of new clamp. This is the patent at issue in Graham’s suit against John Deere. Changes in the clamp: –Hinge plate has been moved above the shank so that the shank does not come into contact with the fixed upper plate. –The shank is secured to the hinge plate by a nut and bolt arrangement at the forward end and a stirrup at the rear. Graham conceived of the design in 1950 but did not file patent application until August 27, 1951.

26. Figure 4: Graham ‘811 Spring Clamp. The spring (66) at the front end of the clamp holds the plow shank flat against the I-beam frame. The shank is pivoting against the rear of the clamp and the pivoting compresses the spring.

27. The ‘811 Graham Plow

28. The Graham Test Scope and content of the prior art Difference between the prior art and the claims at issue Level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art

29. Graham points “[T]he 1952 [patent law] revision was not intended to change the general level of patentable invention. Ultimate question of patentability is one of law; lends itself to “several basic factual inquiries”