Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[asherc]

Hi all! I have some hyperthetical questions about what can be patented:

1.   Was the original inventor of the wheel able to able to patent the concept of the wheel, or could he only patent specific implemetatios of wheels that he could think of?
2.   Assuming nobody had ever fastened peices of clothing together, could the original inventor of the button not only patent the button but also the concept of fastening pieces of clothing together?
3.   Let’s say i am a farmer and i have noticed that none of the vending machines in the world vend packets of manure. Having spotted this omission I spend my time and money developing the design of a special purpose vending machine ideally suited to the job of vending packets of manure, because there are no ordinary vending machines that can do the job properly. The special vending machine differs little from existing vending machines other than its size and appearance. When considering whether to spend the vast amounts of money and time developing the physical vending machine, i naturally consider applying for a patent. The risk is that once this amazing idea is public , the market will be flooded with Chinese made imitations. So the question is can i apply for a patent that protects the very idea of vending packets of manure? I feel this is what i need because an ordinary vending machine could be simply scaled up and given a different visual design and this would do the job. I feel that if i can not be given protection against others who might steel the very i dea of vending packets of manure, then there is no protection. So my decision to go ahead rests on this. In other words, if i don’t get protection for the idea rather than specific implementation then i will not proceed, and if i do not proceed then society will probably never get the benefit of being able to buy packets of manure from vending machines.

[Kaitlin]

3.   Let’s say i am a farmer and i have noticed that none of the vending machines in the world vend packets of manure. Having spotted this omission I spend my time and money developing the design of a special purpose vending machine ideally suited to the job of vending packets of manure, because there are no ordinary vending machines that can do the job properly.

Wouldn't this be considered obvious to one skilled in the art of BS?
[Sorry, couldn't resist!  ]

[JimIvey]

1.   Was the original inventor of the wheel able to able to patent the concept of the wheel, or could he only patent specific implemetatios of wheels that he could think of?

Well, let's see....

The first modern patent statute was enacted in 1790.  On the other hand, the original invention of the wheel predated recorded human history, perhaps by several millennia.

So, it seems that the original inventor of the wheel had no patent statute under which to file for patent protection.

Thus, I doubt very much the original inventor of the wheel was able to get a patent.

2.   Assuming nobody had ever fastened peices of clothing together ....

You realize, of course, that some things would have to have been invented for society to be sufficiently advanced to contemplate, let alone enact, a legal inducement for experimentation and innovation.  So, it's not realistic to imagine patents for things as rudimentary as the very first writing instrument -- since one would presume writing before any laws could be written.

Given that, it's really not useful to consider patents in the context of innovations that predate recorded human history.

Regards.

[asherc]

thank you for the replies.

so the patent inspectors objection to the idea of a manure vending machine might be that it is obvious to a BS artist right? to which i ask how can it be possibly be obvious if nobody ever produced a manure vending machine? to which the patent inspector might say that just because it is obvious does not mean anybody is going to make such a ridiculous thing right? to which i say; well if it is such a ridiculous thing, then nobody will use it and it will not be a commercial success right? so if i then go out and make one and it is a commercial success, then would i be able to go back to the inspector and say look, I was right, you were wrong, there are now no grounds for refusing my patent and therefore give me my patent?

all replies most welcome!

[khazzah]

so the patent inspectors objection to the idea of a manure vending machine might be that it is obvious to a BS artist right? to which i ask how can it be possibly be obvious if nobody ever produced a manure vending machine?

You're asking the wrong question. "Nobody ever produced X" is an indication that X is novel. Obviousness is a completely separate concept.

to which the patent inspector might say that just because it is obvious does not mean
anybody is going to make such a ridiculous thing right?

I'm not following your logic here. Maybe you meant to say something like "just because no one has yet made it doesn't mean they won't" ?

A prediction about whether or not somebody will make something is irrelevant to obviousness. Obviousness is concerned with whether a person of ordinary skill in the art does have the skill to combine known features and whether such a person has a reason to combine the features.

if it is such a ridiculous thing, then nobody will use it and it will not be a commercial success right? so if i then go out and make one and it is a commercial success, then would i be able to go back to the inspector and say look, I was right, you were wrong, there are now no grounds for refusing my patent and therefore give me my patent?

If during the course of prosecuting your patent you start selling the claimed invention, then Yes, you can present *evidence* of commercial success. This is considered to be evidence of non-obviousness.  Depending on the strength of the evidence, it may be enough to convince the PTO to withdraw the obviousness rejection. This is a hard one to win.