Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog

They Invented What? (No. 2)

Posted in General Commentary by Jake Ward on July 6, 2015

Originally posted on Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog:

U.S. Pat. No. 6,368,227: Method of swinging on a swing

 US6368227 FIG 1

I claim:

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.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the…

View original 72 more words

Google Announcing the Patent Purchase Promotion – May 8-22

Posted in General Commentary by Jake Ward on April 29, 2015

From the Google Public Policy Blog, with some traction in the news this week-

Announcing the Patent Purchase Promotion

We invite you to sell us your patents. The Patent Purchase Promotion is an experimental marketplace for patents that’s simple, easy to use, and fast.

Patent owners sell patents for numerous reasons (such as the need to raise money or changes in a company’s business direction). Unfortunately, the usual patent marketplace can sometimes be challenging, especially for smaller participants who sometimes end up working with patent trolls. Then bad things happen, like lawsuits, lots of wasted effort, and generally bad karma. Rarely does this provide any meaningful benefit to the original patent owner.

So today we’re announcing the Patent Purchase Promotion as an experiment to remove friction from the patent market. From May 8, 2015 through May 22, 2015, we’ll open a streamlined portal for patent holders to tell Google about patents they’re willing to sell at a price they set. As soon as the portal closes, we’ll review all the submissions, and let the submitters know whether we’re interested in buying their patents by June 26, 2015. If we contact you about purchasing your patent, we’ll work through some additional diligence with you and look to close a transaction in short order. We anticipate everyone we transact with getting paid by late August.

By simplifying the process and having a concentrated submission window, we can focus our efforts into quickly evaluating patent assets and getting responses back to potential sellers quickly. Hopefully this will translate into better experiences for sellers, and remove the complications of working with entities such as patent trolls.

There’s some fine print that you absolutely want to make sure you fully understand before participating, and we encourage participants to speak with an attorney. More detailed information about the Patent Purchase Promotion is available on our Patent Website, including all the fine print, the form to make a submission (which won’t go live until May 8), and details about what happens if Google agrees to buy your patent. Throughout this process, Google reserves the right to not transact for any reason.

We’re always looking at ways that can help improve the patent landscape and make the patent system work better for everyone. We ask everyone to remember that this program is an experiment (think of it like a 20 percent project for Google’s patent lawyers), but we hope that it proves useful and delivers great results to participants.

They Invented What? (No. 1)

Posted in General Commentary by Jake Ward on January 2, 2015

Originally posted on Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog:

U.S. Pat. No. 3,963,275Method of breaking free-standing rock boulders

 

What is claimed is:

1.)  The method of fragmenting a free-standing boulder comprising

determining the average diameter of said boulder to determine the time required for sound to traverse said average diameter,

determining the compressive strength of said boulder,

selecting a projectile having a mass which will establish an impact stress within said boulder greater than the compressive strength of the boulder, when impacted upon said boulder with a velocity which causes an energy transfer to said boulder within a time less than said determined time,

loading said cannon with said selected projectile,

loading said cannon with a charge which when detonated will cause said projectile to impact upon said boulder with said velocity,

aiming said cannon at said boulder, and

detonating said charge.

View original

Inventing to Nowhere Documentary.

Posted in General Commentary by Jake Ward on December 19, 2014

JW Note:  Very interesting documentary video on Youtube relating to the importance of a strong patent system.  Hat tip to the PatentlyO blog.

New Guidance on Section 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Issued.

Posted in Practice Commentary by Jake Ward on December 16, 2014

From the USPTO Director’s Forum Blog on Monday, December 15, 2014:

Following the valuable feedback that we received from the public through written comments and multiple public meetings over the last several months, we are issuing new examination guidance on subject matter eligibility under § 101 in view of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Alice Corp., Myriad, and Mayo. You can find the guidance in a Federal Register notice officially published on December 16, 2014, entitled “2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility.” Claim examples have been developed to illustrate the analysis set forth in the guidance. A set of examples relating to nature-based products are posted on the USPTO website and a set of examples relating to abstract ideas will be released shortly. This guidance is the latest –but not necessarily the last –iteration of our ongoing implementation of these Supreme Court decisions….

First, the guidance explains the USPTO’s interpretation of subject matter eligibility requirements in view of the Alice Corp., Myriad, and Mayo Supreme Court decisions and  sets forth an integrated approach for patent examiners in making determinations regarding subject matter eligibility. This guidance incorporates principles emphasized in Alice Corp. and provides more details than our initial examination instructions issued immediately after the Alice Corp. decision.

Second, the guidance reflects a significant change from the examination guidance previously issued in response to Myriad and Mayo. The changes were triggered by the feedback we solicited and received from the public, as well as refinements necessitated by the Alice Corp. decision.

They Invented What? (No. 242)

Posted in General Commentary by Jake Ward on December 11, 2014

U.S. Patent Appl. Pub. No. 20080299533: Naughty or nice meter.

JW Note: Wishing a Happy Holidays to all!  See you in 2015!

For more holiday TIW? from years past, click here.

naughtynice

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION:

Undoubtedly, the abstract and background show the uniqueness of the product of this invention. The “Naughty or Nice Meter”, although initiated from the Christmas Holiday season, is a product that allows a visual representation of being “Naughty or Nice”. The product honors and exemplifies the time-honored traditional saying as to whether you have been “Naughty or Nice”. It also transcends the original Christmas Holiday Season to all Holiday seasons and perhaps even birthdays or even a day-to-day “Naughty or Nice Meter.” It could not be said enough that the “Naughty or Nice Meter” is a visual product designed to calibrate if you have been “Naughty or Nice”. No other product exists.

CLAIMS:

1. A “Naughty or Nice Meter” grading product comprising of 12 behavioral questions, a calculator and a “Meter” numbered in a range from Zero (0) to Sixty (60).

(more…)

They Invented What? (No. 241)

Posted in They Invented What? by Jake Ward on October 23, 2014

U.S. Patent No. D250,901:  Toy figure.

JW Note:  A spooky TIW? in view of the upcoming Halloween holiday.  Hat tip to the Creepy IP series at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

lagoonmonster

The ornamental design for a toy figure, substantially as shown.

A Statue for Toulmin.

Posted in General Commentary by Jake Ward on October 10, 2014

Jake Ward:

A top post at the AT! Blog recently – and one of my favorites over the past several years. Enjoy!

Originally posted on Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog:

flyer  

In the small city of Springfield, Ohio, now stands an 8-foot statue dedicated to the Wright Brother’s patent attorney, Harry Toulmin.  Mr. Toulmin was the patent lawyer who prepared and prosecuted the patent for Wilbur and Orville Wright’s flying machine . . . yes, the original airplane.

According to this article at Law.com, Toulmin helped the Wright brothers apply for five patents, including the 1906 flying machine’s patent (U.S. Pat. No. 821,393 or the ‘393 patent).  Other Wright patents also include U.S. Pat. Nos. , , , , and ,

The above article fails to mention, however, that the brothers only turned to Toulmin after the original application they had drafted themselves was rejected by the USPTO.  The ‘393 patent drafted by Toulmin had broad claims covering methods of controlling a flying machine, regardless of whetherthe machine was powered.  In particular, the patent described a system that allowed the aircraft to be controlled in flight, and specifically a…

View original 182 more words

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 741 other followers