 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Olson v. Nieman's Ltd.5/28/1998
thers. Id.
Nieman simply contends no evidence was presented to support the four fact determinations for nonobviousness and very little evidence was presented on the secondary considerations. We disagree.
As to the scope and content of the prior art, we mentioned earlier that Harms compared all of the patents found in Nieman's three patent searches against Harms' description of Olson's idea. The patents constituted what Nieman believed was the prior art. Prior art in the form of patents is a necessary method of establishing patentability. See 35 U.S.C. ยง 103. Although Harms did not conduct his own search, the jury could reasonably find that the patents constituted the prior art against which Olson's idea had to be compared. Contrary to Nieman's contention, the fact that Harms made no search of his own did not affect the admissibility of his testimony. Rather, such failure went to the weight of the testimony.
As to the differences between the prior art and Olson's idea, Harms found none of the patents in evidence affected the patentability of Olson's idea. Two of the patents included the Jones and Bhushan patents-the two Nieman considered most pertinent. Thus, Harms was saying that none of the prior art destroyed the novelty of Olson's idea and did not render his idea obvious to one skilled in the art.
In the following testimony, Harms considered the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art:
Q. I would like you to assume that the evidence in this case shows that Tekonsha Engineering, acting through its Director of Engineering Marcia Albright, evaluated Andrew Olson's [schematic drawing] and after making that examination that Tekonsha Engineering characterized his idea as a good idea, that the implementation of it is straight forward. Would that sort of evidence be of any significance to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in evaluating the patentability of Mr. Olson's idea? A. Why, I think so because one of the tests is whether it's obvious to persons with ordinary skill and technology and the director of engineering in a company that builds trailer parts would certainly seem to be that person with that ordinary skill or reasonable skill in this technology.
Q. And of what significance is it that a person who's the director of engineering of a manufacturer of breakaway switches called the idea a good idea, the implementation of which is straight forward? A. Well, it would seem like an acknowledgment that it's new and that it's not obvious.
Q. And is that information in your experience relevant for examiners before the United States Patent and Trademark Office to consider?
A. Yes.
Nieman's own literature about Olson's idea corroborated Harms' testimony by describing the idea as a "Revolutionary New Warning Device That Turns On Your Rear Stop Light and Flashing Light." In addition, a letter to Olson from Nieman acknowledged that Olson had "the rights to a very valuable invention." The engineering department of a firm Olson had originally contacted about his idea responded: "Your invention is a simple and effective one. I believe it may become required someday." The firm suggested Olson should contact Nieman because "your idea would fit in very well with their idea" of a breakaway battery system.
These statements bear not only on the level-of-ordinary-skill element but they constitute additional evidence serving as indicia of nonobviousness. We think there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that Olson's idea as a whole would not have been obvious, at the time he conceived it, to one of ordinary skill in the art.
A. Expert testimon
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|