Читать книгу Intellectual Property Law for Engineers, Scientists, and Entrepreneurs - Howard B. Rockman - Страница 93

The patent in suit here was for a very narrow advance in a crowded art, and covered a leak‐proof dry cell battery, where insulating material was placed around the conventional cylindrical zinc cup of a flashlight battery, and this was covered by an outside protective metal sheath that would enclose the insulated sidewalls of the zinc cup and tightly embrace both the upper and lower closures to prevent leakage of the electrolyte and depolarizing mix constituting the internal portions of the battery.

The Supreme Court held that, viewed after the event with hindsight, the invention covered by this patent may seem simple. However, the Court noted that, during the prior period of 50 years in which flashlight batteries were used, no one devised a method of curing the defect of leakage. Once the method of the patent in suit was used, it became publicly and commercially successful. The Court held that the fact of commercial success was entitled to weight in determining whether the improvement amounted to an “invention” and should, in a close case, tip the scales in favor of patentability. In this case, the leak proof battery patent was upheld as not “obvious.”