- Zippy Mart has a contractor install a security camera behind its cashier’s station, in industry standard fashion. One evening, the camera captures an inebriated celebrity arguing with other customers. After an employee posts the footage on Youtube, Zippy Mart claims copyright. Is Zippy Mart correct?
- Inventor seeks to patent his “Device for Restraining Geese,” which is an improvement on a prior goose restrainer. Ample evidence shows that the invention would have been obvious to a typical worker in the field. But both Investor and the inventor of the previous device testify credibly that the improvement was not obvious to the Inventor. He did not normally work in the field but had taken on the problem as part of a volunteer program. He was not familiar with either the practical aspects of goose control or with the technology in the field. Accordingly, the problem was a very difficult one for him. But he stepped up and designed a solution. Does the fact that the invention was in fact far from obvious to the Inventor meet the nonobviousness requirement?
To reverse the facts: Suppose Inventor was the foremost expert in goose control and related technology. He admits that the solution was instantly obvious to him. But the