InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 89
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/07/2017

Re: nyt post# 42321

Thursday, 10/12/2017 7:49:37 PM

Thursday, October 12, 2017 7:49:37 PM

Post# of 130712

It wasn't wipers, it was an intermittent device. Seems to me that Hearns was fortunate to get the infringement awards he got, because it seems that intermittent would be way "obvious". Wipers already came w/2 speeds so it obviously wouldn't take too much to go from 2 speeds to even slower speeds with a rheostat.



It isn't just the obviousness of the functional utility - it's the obviousness of how you achieved it, including prior art. And btw, it has to be obvious "back then."
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent VPLM News