Academic commentary about patent law, i.p. law, creativity, and more

March 27, 2007

Another nonobviousness gem

posted by Joe at 5:32 pm

Came across this, on the long felt need inference, a moment ago …

The fact that the invention seems simple after it is made does not determine the question; if this were the rule, many of the most beneficial patents would be stricken down. It may be safely said that if those skilled in the mechanical arts are working in a given field, and have failed, after repeated efforts, to discover a certain new and useful improvement, that he who first makes the discovery has done more than make the obvious improvement which would suggest itself to a mechanic skilled in the art, and is entitled to protection as an inventor.

Expanded Metal Co. v. Bradford, 214 U.S. 366, 381 (1909).


No Comments »

No comments yet.

Comments RSS Feed | TrackBack URL

Leave a comment