|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 08:10 AM EDT |
Let's rephrase that ...
"Doing it with a machine" is obvious, and not patentable.
"A machine to do it with" on the other hand - that's not obvious, and
patentable. Especially if it's not been done by machine before.
Actually, that is the problem ... they're allowing a new combination of old task
and old machine to be patentable.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT |
"Method for increasing crop yields and making possible
animal-powered or mechanised planting, weeding, and
harvesting, comprising the steps of:
1. Determining the ideal plant spacing;
2. Dragging a sharp, weighted instrument ("plow") over the
ground to create a furrow along one edge of the field;
3. repositioning the plow at the distance determined in
step 1;
4. create a new furrow parallel to the previous furrow,
using the method of step 2;
5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 until the field is plowed.
It's a method, it's not abstract, it's not pure math, it's
not a law of nature. It happens not to be novel, but is
there anything in patent law that says it wouldn't be
patentable if it were novel?
Patent lawyers can have fun with this: would use of a two-
furrow plow infringe this patent? (I think not.) If not,
could you patent a new method that was identical except said
"use a multi-bladed plow"? Contour plowing wouldn't
directly infringe, but would it be obvious?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
