翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Anderson's Cove ・ Anderson's crocodile newt ・ Anderson's Cross ・ Anderson's four-eyed opossum ・ Anderson's gerbil ・ Anderson's Mill ・ Anderson's Pty Ltd v Victoria ・ Anderson's Reports ・ Anderson's rule ・ Anderson's salamander ・ Anderson's shrew ・ Anderson's shrew mole ・ Anderson's squirrel ・ Anderson's theorem ・ Anderson's white-bellied rat ・ Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. ・ Anderson, Alabama ・ Anderson, Alaska ・ Anderson, Burnett County, Wisconsin ・ Anderson, California ・ Anderson, Cass County, Illinois ・ Anderson, Clayton and Company ・ Anderson, Dorset ・ Anderson, Etowah County, Alabama ・ Anderson, Illinois ・ Anderson, Indiana ・ Anderson, Iowa ・ Anderson, Iron County, Wisconsin ・ Anderson, Mendocino County, California ・ Anderson, Missouri Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. ： ウィキペディア英語版 Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. (詳細はUnited States Supreme Court on the legal standard governing the obviousness of claimed inventions. It stands for the proposition that, when old elements are combined in a way such that they do not interact in a novel, unobvious way, then the resulting combination is obvious and therefore unpatentable. The patent (U.S. Pat. No. 3,055,280) sought to solve a problem in paving asphalt roads—the joint between the new section and old, cold sections tends to bond poorly. Previously, one machine spread and shaped the new deposit of asphalt and a second machine contained a radiant-heat burner, which softened cold asphalt. The claimed invention combined on one machine chassis the spreading and shaping equipment along with a radiant-heat burner. “The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a ‘new or different function,’” Accordingly, the Court held the combination obvious. == Subsequent developments == The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for many years ignored and refused to cite or follow the ''Black Rock'' decision. But the recent Supreme Court decision in ''KSR v. Teflex'',〔550 U.S. 398 (2007).〕 which cited and followed ''Black Rock'' for the proposition that “a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” gave the Federal Circuit “forceful instruction” 〔(More on the impact of ''KSR'' ), Lawrence Ebert, 2007-05-01〕 to change its approach. After the Supreme Court granted ''certiorari'' in the ''KSR'' case, the Federal Circuit began to defer to the ''Black Rock'' decision.〔See Dystar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Before ''Dystar'' the Federal Circuit appears to have cited ''Black Rock'' only twice, in 1984 and 1985.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.