Answer :
In order to answer this question correctly, we need to consider the principles of patent law, particularly those related to novelty and non-obviousness, as well as any relevant historic court decisions.
In patent law, for an invention to be patentable, it must meet several criteria. It must be novel, meaning it is not known or used by others in this field before the patent applicant invented it. It must be non-obvious, meaning that it must not be an obvious improvement or combination in the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention.
Based on the details of the question, here's a breakdown of each choice:
A. This choice suggests that the patent holder should win because no one had ever put an eraser on a pencil before. If the combination of a pencil and an eraser had indeed never been done before, it could potentially be considered novel.
B. This choice suggests that the patent holder would win simply because the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) approved his patent. While PTO approval is necessary for a patent, it doesn't necessarily protect against all lawsuits, and patents can be invalidated if they should not have been issued in the first place due to reasons like lack of novelty or being obvious.
C. This choice suggests that Faber-Castell would win because the pencil with an eraser was not novel. If pencils and erasers were both well-known at the time of the patent, then combining the two might be considered obvious to someone skilled in the art, which could invalidate the patent.
D. This choice suggests that Faber-Castell would win because the pencil with an eraser was not useful. This is a less likely argument because utility is a relatively low bar in patent law, and a pencil with an eraser is clearly functional and useful.
Based on this analysis, the answer that seems most legally sound would be C, "Faber-Castell because the pencil with an eraser was not novel." If pencils and erasers were already common and known to work well together, then attaching an eraser to a pencil might not be seen as a substantial innovation, but rather an obvious improvement that a person skilled in the art could have easily come up with. However, without specific information about the details of the case, such as the precise claims made in the patent and the prior art at the time, this answer is not definitive and should be understood as a general interpretation of patent law principles.
