Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

which purported to be examples of what

National Tractor Pullers Association Mr. Huls had attempted to draw in 1963-
v. Watkins, 205 U.S.P.Q.(BNA) 892 64. The plaintiffs asserted that the
(N.D.Ill. 1980) [394] conception of the machine on the back
of the tablecloth constituted prior
Case: Patent Cancellation knowledge by them, and therefore such
Type of Claim: Device Claim knowledge was prior art which
anticipated the claimed invention.
Doctrine: Only publicly disclosed
knowledge, or knowledge which is ISSUE
reasonably accessible to the public, W/N such drawings constituted prior art
before the patentee invented the
claimed subject matter may serve as HELD
prior art in order to render a patent No. In order to qualify as prior art, the art
invalid. must be art which was known before the
invention by the patentee. Prior
Facts knowledge must be prior public
This is an action for declaration of knowledge, that is knowledge which is
invalidity and noninfringement of U.S. reasonably accessible to the public. The
Patent brought by the plaintiff, National knowledge required involves some type
Tractor Pullers Association, Inc., of public disclosure and is not satisfied
("NTPA") against the patentee and by knowledge of a single person, or a
owner of the patent, Mr. Billy K. Watkins. few persons working together
This court finds that the 1963-64
The plaintiffs NTPA, which organized alleged Huls-Harms-Sage activities does
and sanctioned pulling contests not qualify as prior art as found by the
nationally, sued for a declaration that the Patent Office.
defendants patent on a device for
measuring the pulling strength of a In order for alleged prior inventions to
tractor was invalid. qualify s prior art under, there must be
a) proven by clear and convincing
The Association contended that a device evidence,
designed by three other inventors (the b) complete conception of a
Huls device) anticipated Watkinss sled. buildable and operable device,
The plaintiffs alleged that the claimed c) diligence to a reduction to
invention was invented in 1963 or 1964 practice of the device,
by three men, Huls, Harms, and Sage, d) identification between the
who conceived of the substantially the alleged prior art deice and the
same device, and drew it on a tablecloth claimed construction and lack of
in Huls mothers kitchen. abandonment, and
e) suppression or concealment by
By 1977, when the lawsuit started, the the claimed prior inventor.
alleged original drawing no longer
remained, but Huls made some The court finds that the NTPA has failed
drawings himself and hired a drafter to to prove complete conception by the
prepare formal ones drawings in 1977 Shutzbaugh group prior to Mr. Watkins
reduction to practice nor has diligence at least one participant in those
been proven from the time of Mr. activities, Mr. Merle K. Sage, testified at
Watkins' conception to the construction his deposition that the device allegedly
of the Shutzbaugh sled. shown in the 1977 Huls drawings could
not be construed as shown. The Irwin
1977 drawings did not exist prior to Mr.
The Huls 1963-64 activities do not
Watkins conception and reduction to
constitute prior art as also found by the
practice, and do not purport to be
Patent Office. The no longer existing
identical with any drawings that ever
alleged tablecloth drawings were never
existed prior to 1977.
available to the public. They were
drawn on the underside of the tablecloth
and remained in the kitchen of Mr. Huls
mother's home and were never printed
nor otherwise published before being
destroyed. The device was never
constructed or reduced to practice and

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen