Intellectual Property Forums (http://www.intelproplaw.com/Forum/Forum.cgi)

(Message started by: E. L. Shumaker on Apr 25th, 2006, 1:17pm)

Title: Wood Art
Post by E. L. Shumaker on Apr 25th, 2006, 1:17pm
Dear knowledge base...

For the past few years, I have been making a unique piece of art out of wood that contains a typical looking religious cross as one of itís components.  The uniqueness of the piece is its overall design and how it is assembled.  I have been manufacturing the product using a pattern I made and selling them a craft shows.  I know that my design has been attempted to be duplicated in the past.  I'm thinking of selling it commercially.   Is it possible to patent something like this?  Thank you for your insight.

Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by Isaac on Apr 25th, 2006, 1:57pm
I believe that even if he kept the apparatus secret, by selling material produced using the apparatus to the public, he starts the clock on the 102(b) bar at least with respect to his own patenting efforts.

Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by CriterionD on Apr 25th, 2006, 2:16pm

on 04/25/06 at 13:57:47, Isaac wrote:
I believe that even if he kept the apparatus secret, by selling material produced using the apparatus to the public, he starts the clock on the 102(b) bar at least with respect to his own patenting efforts.


But, if no one was capable of proving/documenting that what he has already sold was produced by the method/apparatus being patented, this couldn't be held against him, no? (I realize this may be a moot point...and at the same time I guess that if he is able to patent the method, he would also have to be able to prove/document that infringers were copying the method for the patent to really be worth much)

Anyways, its worth noting that the design of E.L.'s artwork should already be subject to copyright protection, even if the scope of that protection is less than what could be possible as the result of a patent.


Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by Crackpot on Apr 25th, 2006, 3:49pm
Boys, Boys, Boys ... shame!

Where does 35 USC 102b list public disclosure as a barring activity?
Public use does require public disclosure and does not require any determination of whether anyone saw the use.

Where does the inventor say he sold the items for years in the United States?
He says he has been making them for years. He does not specify a country where he sold the items.

35 USC 102b states:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or ...

Expunge the concept of public disclosure from your vocabularies.

Inventor, has a 35 USC 102b event occurred?

For example, if you sold units of your invention at a craft show IN THE UNITED STATES, MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO, then patentablity is lost for the inventive units.

You have wandered into a detail oriented field.
I don't believe you have provided enough information to determine whether patentability is lost.

Questions must be asked.
You say you manufactured and sold at craft shows.
Does this mean you manufactured at craft shows?
If your invention is a method of assembly, and you used this invention in public more than one year ago, then patentablity on your method of assembly is lost.

What's this "no one capable of proving/documenting" nonsense? Is someone conspiring to fail in their duties of disclosure?

Return to the path of the righteous and be saved from your devilish ways.

Ciao!


Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by E. L. Shumaker on Apr 26th, 2006, 11:52am
Thank you all for your input.

I will admit that I do not fully understand all that you have presented.  I will explore the website some more and do some reading to hopefully better understand my options.

What I think I did come away with is that because my "work" has been in the public for over one year, I cannot get a patent on it.  As for the process of creating the "work", the door might be open for a patent if I did not display the making of the "work" in public. (which I have not).

Thanks again  



Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by Crackpot on Apr 26th, 2006, 12:13pm
OK, I too am shamed. I meant to say:

Where does 35 USC 102b list public disclosure as a barring activity?
Public use does NOT require public disclosure and does not require any determination of whether anyone saw the use.
(the NOT is added here to correct my statement.)

The point I'm trying to make regards the term "public disclosure." It seems to be some kind of slang term directed toward all the events listed in 35 USC 102b. Essentially everytime I've heard the term it has led to questionable presumptions or utterly false conclusions.

For example, I've argued that the use of a novel yard tool in an inventor's front yard entailed public use.  People working with me in the related forum argued that I could not know that the invention was disclosed because the inventor did not know if anyone saw the use. I argued it did not matter whether anyone saw or whether anything was actually disclosed to anyone. The people working with me were not patent professionals but were engaged in invention related professions.

This discourse has prompted me to consider investigating the origin of the "public disclosure" term and concept.

If anyone has any tips on that investigation ... please reply.

Thanks!

Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by wallflower on Apr 26th, 2006, 12:18pm

on 04/26/06 at 11:52:27, E. L. Shumaker wrote:
Thank you all for your input.

As for the process of creating the "work", the door might be open for a patent if I did not display the making of the "work" in public. (which I have not).


That is not correct.  I thought Isaac had a post about the Metallizing case, but I don't see it anymore.    The case held that an inventor's use of a secret process along with the open sale of a product of that process will be a "public use" of the process.  Public use is a statutory bar under 102(b).

Title: Re: Wood Art
Post by Isaac on Apr 26th, 2006, 1:39pm
I deleted my post because it seemed a bit too patronizing in tone, and others seemed to have no problem coming up with the right answer.



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.2!
Forum software copyright © 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board