A famous court decision in the area of obviousness came in United States vs. Adams, which took place in 1966. The patent under consideration was related to a electrical battery that was composed of a magnesium electrode and a cuprous chloride electrode. Adams and his team stated that this was a unique battery because it did not utilize dangerous acids or other harmful chemicals. Also this was a battery that could be used in dry conditions without the addition of water, which separated it from other batteries at the time. The US wanted to review this patent that was validated and infringed upon. Adams and his team actually first charged the Government with infringement and the Government responded by challenging the validity of the patent in the first case.
The Government at the time signed contracts with multiple large firms to make the battery without letting Adams or any members of his team know. The US challenged the validity of the patent based on obviousness, which related to the fact that using chemical reactions as a source of electricity was a well known strategy. The only difference was that Adams used magnesium instead of zinc and cuprous chloride instead of silver chloride.
However, unlike many of the famous obviousness cases, Adams and his team came out victorious due to the key concept that the battery did not require water to function. This case was cited in many subsequent cases including the famous KSR vs. Teleflex, as a patent that did satisfy the requirement for nonobviousness, even with the combination of known elements.
As evidence by this case, it is possible to combine two or more elements of prior art, while still remaining innovative. Although it becomes a little tougher to prove your patent was truly innovative, the main point is to ensure that you have one key selling point that differentiates you from anything that the related prior art could solve alone.
The Government at the time signed contracts with multiple large firms to make the battery without letting Adams or any members of his team know. The US challenged the validity of the patent based on obviousness, which related to the fact that using chemical reactions as a source of electricity was a well known strategy. The only difference was that Adams used magnesium instead of zinc and cuprous chloride instead of silver chloride.
However, unlike many of the famous obviousness cases, Adams and his team came out victorious due to the key concept that the battery did not require water to function. This case was cited in many subsequent cases including the famous KSR vs. Teleflex, as a patent that did satisfy the requirement for nonobviousness, even with the combination of known elements.
As evidence by this case, it is possible to combine two or more elements of prior art, while still remaining innovative. Although it becomes a little tougher to prove your patent was truly innovative, the main point is to ensure that you have one key selling point that differentiates you from anything that the related prior art could solve alone.
You write very intelligent, interesting posts that create a complete story. Your explanations are logical and clear--please keep up the excellent work!
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting Roshan. I definitely agree with the Supreme Court's verdict in this decision, given that changing two of the elements involved in the chemical reaction is not necessarily that obvious and more importantly, is an extremely significant change in the overall process. Additionally, the fact that the battery was waterproof meant that this new process created extra utility from this product that didn't previously exist.
ReplyDelete