Print

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

[bravnot]

I have an idea I'm not sure is patent worthy.  I've been reading a few posts in the forum, and haven't found an obvious answer, so I thought I'd post.

My idea involves taking existing technologies, and combining them to form a device that does not yet exist.  Devices exist that *can* do the same thing, but not nearly as focused or cost-efficient.

I've tried to think of an anology, and the best I can come up with without divulging too much information is the first walkman.  Stereo's existed, tape players existed, but the walkman rendered both useless in terms of mobility.  People could walk around with their boomboxes and headphones and achieve the same result, but with less practicality.

So I guess I could get a lot of questions answered by knowing if the walkman was patentable when it was created.  

I appreciate your time and any advice.

[W]

Patent-worthy => New, unique, original. Must satisfy all three. Additionally, you must deal with prior-art.

Best bet? If you believe your implementation (cannot patent ideas) meets the above criteria, contact a patent attorney. He'll run a search and draft your claims.

You can do this all by yourself, but it's unhealthy. Check the USPTO for more information.

-W

[JSonnabend]

Bravnot -

Most patents are improvements of existing technologies, and not pioneering technologies, so the general answer to your inquiry is that, assuming you pass the novelty and non-obviousness tests for patentability, you should be able to receive a patent for your idea.

On the notion of patentability of "ideas" vs. "implementations", I respectfully disagree with W's statements that ideas are not patentable.  There is no requirement that you ever implement your invention.  The only requirement in this regard is that the patent disclosure be enbabling.  If you are able to describe fully a hypothetical, working implementation of your invention, you need never actually reduce it to practice.

- Jeff

[W]

With all due respect, ideas are not patentable.

I cannot walk into Mr. Ivey's or Mr. Clark's office, and say that I want to patent "nuclear fusion". I can, however, patent a method for nuclear fusion (utility patent) or, if if I am so inclined, the way the reactor looks (design patent).

Now, what JSonnabend may be getting at, is that you do not need a prototype to get a patent.

http://www.pcplus.co.uk/opinion/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=4212&subsectionid=381&subsubsectionid=77

Additionally, a patent attorney can produce claims that are so broad, that effectively you can patent an idea. But an idea != broad implementation.

-W

[W]

But back to your question, bravnot. The walkman, provided no other prior-art existed at the time, could have/may have been patented. Something along the lines of:

"A system comprised of 'such and such' in a small form factor"

Whether or not it would satisfy the obviousness clause is debatable. Were there other portable stereos at the time? Did they conform to a small form factor? Did they use a headphone jack as the primary source of audio output?

A few hours with a patent attorney and a prior-art search can answer all these questions.

Regards,

-W

[Isaac]

I've been convinced that the truism that "mere ideas are not
patentable" is a tautology.  Yes it is true that abstract
ideas are not patentable, but I don't think there is an
easy way to decide when an idea is 'mere' or 'abstact'.

Also people often talk about ideas when they actually do
have an invention.  How much energy is it worth to get that
person to stop calling his patentably thingy an idea?  IMO
not much.

[W]

Fair enough.

-W

[eric stasik]

Dear Bravnot,

Pretty much every invention involves a combination of things that are known. Sometimes the combination is obvious, sometimes it is not.

For example, let's say the cassette Walkman exists and CD players exist. Replacing the cassette player with a CD player would seem to me an obvious combination and I think it would have been difficult to get a claim allowed that would say "a walkman where the cassette mechanism is replaced by a CD player."

Furthermore, even if it was non-obvious, you cannot have an idea like "gee wouldn't it be nice if I could CDs on my walkman" and then get a patent on the combination without providing a detailed technical solution. That's what you get a patent on: not on the idea, but on the technical solution to the idea. The broader you can claim the technical solutions, the closer you come to having a patent on the idea, but ideas alone can never be patented.

Getting back to the example, if you can't get a patent on the simple combination of a CD and a walkman, don't give up.

Ask yourself "What technical problems arise from this?" "Is there some problem that is not so obvious, but that everyone who wants build CD Walkmans will have to confront?"

Well, putting a CD player into a Walkman presents a lot of obvious problems to which the solutions are maybe not so obvious: vibration, battery efficiency, size, etc.

You would have to include circuitry to compensate for vibration. CD's use a Reed-Solomon coding that is pretty good against short  shocks, but is crummy against longer shocks, or sustained vibration. Now I am not a coding expert, but I imagine there were many clever solutions to this which were patented.

Similarly, you'd have to design a special laser pickup that would work in the same vibrational environment. I bet there are non-obvious solutions here as well that were patented (or could have been patented.)

What you do is work from the top down looking for technical bottlenecks - those aspects of the design that everyone must pass through - and patent these if you can. You can sometimes even create bottlenecks by clever product design - a la Gillette, Lexmark printer cartridges, etc.

So the moral of the story is maybe you can't patent a walkman with a CD, but you might be able to patent a circuit without which no one can build a walkman and a CD.  

And this is what patent engineering is all about - finding those inventions which may not be obvious the inventor.

Regards,

eric stasik

[bravnot]

All-

I greatly appreciate all the advice and suggestions.  I have an appointment with a patent attorney today at lunch for our initial discussion about my idea.  

My "idea" does sort of follow with the classical definition of an idea.  I do, however, have a solution for implementation.  My problem is that the implementation is broad, and I'm afraid could be easily manipulated in order to not infringe on any patent I might get.

After reading through some of these posts, it appears I have my situation backwards.  I am extremely confident in the marketablility of my device.  That really bears no relevancy on whether it's patent-worthy or not.  I'll know a lot more after my meeting with the attorney.

Again, I appreciate all the input.