|
|
Author |
Topic: re-patenting an expired patent (Read 10110 times) |
|
dandan
Newbie
Posts: 1
|
 |
re-patenting an expired patent
« on: Mar 18th, 2004, 10:59am » |
 Quote  Modify
|
A friend of mine has several patents he worked on years ago.
They have expired. Technology today is much more sophisticated than 30 and 40 years ago. One invention is an electrically powered tool (with a power cord). It has never come to market, although several companies were interested. How much revision must be done to the original concept to repatent the invention? For example, if it was redesigned to be a cordless tool would that be sufficient to re-patent it? Or if the housing was changed from its' current
heavy metal to today's impact reisistant plastic? Or if the cutting blade was changed to diamond/carbide type of blade?
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2584
|
 |
Re: re-patenting an expired patent
« Reply #1 on: Mar 18th, 2004, 11:50am » |
Quote Modify
|
Both of those improvements are unlikely to be sufficient. The improvement has to be non-obvious.
In terms of using a battery to make it cordless, cordless power tools have been around for a long time. I suspect there is literature out there touting the benefits of cordless power tools. The literature would likely serve as motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt a corded tool with a known rechargeable battery.
Similar logic applies to replacement of a steel housing with a plastic one.
Now, don't take this as gospel. It's possible that there are good reasons why these particular adaptations are non-obvious. But you should expect rejections along these lines and be prepared with a good argument to overcome the rejection.
The most common formulation of an obviousness rejection is that all parts are known in the prior art and there is some suggestion in the public knowledge that the parts could be combined in the way you did.
The best way around that type of rejection is to have a claim element which is in none of the prior art references or to combine elements in a way which is not suggested in the prior art. Showing that the combination is counter-intuitive in conventional thinking is helpful.
I hope that helps.
|
|
IP Logged |
--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
|
|
|
westdene
Newbie
Posts: 16
|
|
Re: re-patenting an expired patent
« Reply #2 on: Mar 18th, 2004, 11:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
IMHO you cannot pretend to have a granted patent about some technology already disclosed several years ago, just because you have made minimun changes like the material of the casing or the use of newly developed drilling tools. Neither you would get a granted patent for the mere fact of combining old technology with new technology, unless the result is unexpected or non obviuos by any skilled in the art. I believe that making a wired device into a wireless device is an obvious result by any skilled in the art. So unless you make some techincal changes, like for example change the internal machine in a way that no ordinary skilled in the art can do, I wouldnt be filing a patent. Now, you are not banned from filing a patent about obvious technology if you need an application just to comply with some economical contract, but I wouldnt suggest that either, because the other part would analize the application before even paying you a dime.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
M. Arthur Auslander
Full Member
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 541
|
|
Re: re-patenting an expired patent
« Reply #3 on: Mar 18th, 2004, 3:06pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Dear Westdene,
What you are describing sounds like the patents that Inven Tech and unscrupulous(sp?) patent lawyers get.
|
|
IP Logged |
M. Arthur Auslander
Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law
3008 Johnson Ave., New York, NY 10463
7185430266, aus@auslander.com
Reality Check® ELAINE's Workshop®
|
|
|
westdene
Newbie
Posts: 16
|
|
Re: re-patenting an expired patent
« Reply #4 on: Mar 19th, 2004, 9:21am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 18th, 2004, 3:06pm, M_Arthur_Auslander wrote:Dear Westdene,
What you are describing sounds like the patents that Inven Tech and unscrupulous(sp?) patent lawyers get. |
|
You've said it not me 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print