The Intellectual Property Law Server

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Dec 13th, 2019, 12:08pm

Forums Forums Help Help Search Search Members Members Calendar Calendar Login Login Register Register
   Intellectual Property Forums
  
  
Obviousness
(Moderators: Forum Admin, JimIvey, JSonnabend)
   How simple can a patent be?
« Previous topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: How simple can a patent be?  (Read 1362 times)
Wiscagent
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 843
Re: How simple can a patent be?
« Reply #5 on: Sep 15th, 2006, 5:03pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Specifically regarding US 6,368,227 this patent was reexamined and all the claims were rejected.  So upon taking a second look the USPTO (patent office) agreed that the patent should not have issued, and it is no longer valid.
 
But to Jim’s point “… the patent system is implemented with human beings -- a notoriously fallible creation.”  Here’s a challenge for you – conduct a search for publications dated prior to November 17, 1999 that describe claim 1 of US 6,368,227:
 
 1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of:  
  a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are
      hung from a tree branch;  
  b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction
      perpendicular to the tree branch;  
  c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement
      of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain
      to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and  
  d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the
  user, that is parallel to the tree branch.
 
Perhaps you can find such a reference in a few hours; apparently the patent examiner could not.  But you can see that it is a non-trivial exercise to find such prior art.  Many well known or “obvious” activities are poorly documented and indexed.  That contributes to the difficulty of being a patent examiner.
« Last Edit: Sep 15th, 2006, 5:05pm by Wiscagent » IP Logged

Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent
Peter Beechey
Guest
Re: How simple can a patent be?
« Reply #6 on: Sep 15th, 2006, 6:01pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify Remove Remove

I greatly appreciate your answers. (I have actually sent Mr McIvey an email). I appreciate that you take the time to share your advice and knowledge with me - for free. My idea isnt ridiculous like the patent we have been discussing. You know when on a quiz show if you know the answer - then it is blindingly obvious and if you dont then you wonder why your intelligence is lacking. My idea is just so amazingly obvious that it took no intelligence nor scientific testing to get to this point - and so I therefore wonder how it can be 'worthy' or acknowledgement (thanks for reassuring me that the patent I mentioned got rightfully rejected upon reflection).
IP Logged
JimIvey
Moderator
Senior Member
*****




  jamesdivey  
WWW

Posts: 2584
Re: How simple can a patent be?
« Reply #7 on: Sep 17th, 2006, 11:48am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Re the swinging patent:  I can and will, if ever presented with sufficient motivation, prove that patent to be invalid with prior art not consider by the examiner.
 
I would happily sign a declaration that I personally practiced the invention in public more than 30 years before the filing date of the application and witnessed, first hand, others practicing the same invention at or around the same time, approximately 30 years prior to the filing date of the application.
 
What you have there is an abberation.  You have one patent practitioner trying to be ever so clever with something his son did and, extrapolating an ethnic generalization from the sirname of the examiner, the examiner may not have grown up in a community in which swings of the type I grew up with were plentiful.
 
Refer to my quote of Michael Jackson above....
 
But I think Rich makes a good point:  in some cases, finding the applicable prior art is very difficult.  So, some patents squeak through the process when they shouldn't.  But anecdotal evidence does not establish an epidemic as some seem to think we have.
 
Regards.
IP Logged

--
James D. Ivey
Law Offices of James D. Ivey
http://www.iveylaw.com
Bill Richards
Full Member
***




   
WWW Email

Posts: 758
Re: How simple can a patent be?
« Reply #8 on: Sep 17th, 2006, 7:56pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

When the Commissioner became aware of this patent, he initiated a reexam.  (See Public PAIR.)  The outcome is not shown, but the patent expired due to non-payment of maintenance fees.
Per Wikipedia:  "The patent was rejected upon subsequent reexamination because the examiner found that the distinguishing feature of the invention, 'yelling like Tarzan', did not 'particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention'".
« Last Edit: Sep 17th, 2006, 7:57pm by Bill Richards » IP Logged

William B. Richards, P.E.
The Richards Law Firm
Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
614/939-1488
Wiscagent
Full Member
***




   


Posts: 843
Re: How simple can a patent be?
« Reply #9 on: Sep 17th, 2006, 10:11pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

To find the reexamination certificate for the swinging patent, look up application number 90/006,289 in public PAIR.  Click on the “Image File Wrapper” tab.  Then click on “Reexamination Certificate Issued.”  On page 2 of the reexamination certificate it states:
 
  AS A RESULT OF REEXAMINATION, IT HAS BEEN
  DETERMINED THAT:  Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 are cancelled.
 
There were only those four claims in the original patent as granted.
IP Logged

Richard Tanzer
Patent Agent
Pages: 1 2  Reply Reply Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« Previous topic | Next topic »
Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board