tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post7421008402264379890..comments2024-03-26T13:13:25.033-04:00Comments on Written Description: Classic Patent ScholarshipLisa Larrimore Ouellettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-48760845014793154872012-10-17T14:17:28.048-04:002012-10-17T14:17:28.048-04:00Another helpful suggestion, received by email:
&q...Another helpful suggestion, received by email:<br /><br />"Just thought I'd add a book to the Classic Works: Webster's on Patents. Webster's is a hit-list of English patent cases pre-1850 or so. If you read U.S. patent cases pre-1850 (and there are a surprising number), they all reference Webster's as authority. (Assumedly because there wasn't enough U.S. law on the subject.) Indeed, it was Webster's reporting of cases the Supreme Court referenced in its famous early patent cases, Le Roy and O'Reilly, and from which we've derived almost all of our section 101 jurisprudence."Lisa Larrimore Ouellettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-28617334802881276522012-10-16T18:23:56.869-04:002012-10-16T18:23:56.869-04:00Sarah Burstein (@design_law) had the great sugges...Sarah Burstein (@design_law) had the <a href="https://twitter.com/design_law/status/258302191947874305" rel="nofollow">great suggestion of also including works on design patents</a>. Here are the three treatises she refers to: <a href="http://openlibrary.org/books/OL24154475M/The_law_of_design_patents" rel="nofollow">Simonds (1874)</a>, <a href="http://designpatentschool.com/page8/assets/Book%20-%20The%20Law%20of%20Patents%20for%20Designs.pdf" rel="nofollow">Fenton (1889) (large PDF)</a>, and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=C9U0AAAAIAAJ" rel="nofollow">Symons (1914)</a>. And here is <a href="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2862&context=dlj" rel="nofollow">one of Reichman's design patent articles</a>.Lisa Larrimore Ouellettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-58577879982710409112012-10-16T16:33:47.036-04:002012-10-16T16:33:47.036-04:00Thanks for the suggestion, Joe! I haven't read...Thanks for the suggestion, Joe! I haven't read her work, so I'll check it out.Lisa Larrimore Ouellettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18401005012430355377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2977297931731346524.post-69460228227532558182012-10-16T16:27:31.886-04:002012-10-16T16:27:31.886-04:00I would add Mary Helen Sears, Combination Patents...I would add Mary Helen Sears, Combination Patents and 35 U.S.C. § 103, 1977 Detroit C.L. Rev. 83. It's remarkable the extent to which her ideas in this piece are vindicated in the Supreme Court's nonobviousness decision, 40 years later, in KSR v. Teleflex (2007).Joe Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08230717014552870778noreply@blogger.com