Anticipate This!™ | Patent and Trademark Law Blog

They Invented What? (No. 67)

Posted in They Invented What? by Jake Ward on October 3, 2007

U.S. Pat. No. 5,498,162: Method for demonstrating a lifting technique. 

  boxlift

What is claimed is:

1. A process for demonstrating a lifting technique to a person, the process comprising the steps of:

providing a substantially rectangular box in a first stationary position on a ground surface, the box having an internal storage area means for receiving a plurality of weights therein, the internal storage area means formed by a top wall, a bottom wall, a front wall, a back wall, and first and second opposed side walls, the first and second side walls each having handles thereon adjacent the top wall, the bottom wall contacting the ground surface in the first stationary position, the bottom wall being movable to provide access to the internal storage area means;
inserting at least one weight into the internal storage area means, wherein the internal storage area means receives said plurality of weights therein to selectively change the weight of the box and the resistance one’s body perceives when raising and lower the box from the first stationary position and to the first stationary position, the bottom wall having a securing means such that the at least weight is contained within the box when the box is lifted;
approaching two perpendicular sides of the box, wherein one of the perpendicular sides is one of the front or back walls, in the first stationary position at approximately a 45.degree. angle such that one’s feet are wider than shoulder distance apart when one is adjacent the box;
bending one’s knees such that one’s body is close to the box;
lifting the box from the first stationary position using the handles; and
returning the box to the first stationary position.

2. The process of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:

inverting the box to a second stationary position wherein the handles are not readily accessible;
approaching two perpendicular sides of the box, wherein one of the perpendicular sides is one of the front or back walls, at approximately a 45.degree. angle such that one’s feet are wider than shoulder distance apart when one is adjacent the box;
bending one’s knees such that one’s body is close to the box; and
lifting the box without using the handles.

3. The process of claim 2, further comprising the steps of:

inserting a second weight into the internal storage area means;
approaching two perpendicular sides of the box, wherein one of the perpendicular sides is one of the front or back walls, at approximately a 45.degree. angle such that one’s feet are wider than shoulder distance apart when one is adjacent the box;
bending one’s knees such that one’s body is close to the box; and
lifting the box.

4. The process of claim 2, further comprising the steps of:

approaching a side of the box in the first stationary position at approximately 90.degree. angle such that one’s feet are shoulder distance apart when one is adjacent the box;
squatting down to the box;
lifting the box from the first stationary position using the handles;
returning the box to the first stationary position;
inverting the box to a second stationary position wherein the handles are not readily accessible;
approaching a side of the box at approximately a 90.degree. angle such that one’s feet are shoulder distance apart when one is adjacent the box;
squatting down to the box; and
lifting the box without using the handles.

5. A method for demonstrating a lifting technique to a person, the method comprising the steps of:

providing one with a first comparison kinesthetic experience by having one bend at the knees both first with a shoulder width stance and then with a wider than shoulder width stance to experience a difference in the amount of work required by the leg and knee;
providing one with a second comparison kinesthetic experience by having one support a load with one’s hands first with a shoulder width stance and then with a wider than shoulder width stance to experience the increase in strength derived from a wider than shoulder width stance compared to a shoulder width stance and experience the load shift from one’s back to one’s legs when a wider than shoulder stance is used; and
providing one with a third comparison kinesthetic experience by having one lift a box by approaching two perpendicular sides of the box from approximately a 45.degree. angle, wherein one of the perpendicular sides is one of a front wall or a back wall of the box, and wherein the box includes a top wall, a bottom wall, a front wall, a back wall, and first and second opposed side walls, the first and second side walls each having handles thereon adjacent to the top wall, the bottom wall being movable to provide access to an internal storage area means for receiving at least one of a plurality of weights therein to selectively change the weight of the box and the resistance one’s body perceives when raising and lowering the box, wherein the bottom wall has a securing means such that said at least first weight is contained within the box when the box is lifted, spreading one’s feet wider than shoulder width around the box, bending one’s knees, positioning one’s body close to the box, lifting the box with one’s legs, and lowering the box with one’s legs, then lifting the box with a stance shoulder width apart by approaching one of said sides of the box from approximately a 90 degree angle to experience the first parts of both the first and second kinesthetic experiences at the same time.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the box is a substantially rectangular box having an internal storage area formed by a top wall, a bottom wall, a front wall, a back wall, and first and second opposed side walls, the first and second side walls each having handles thereon adjacent the top wall such that in an upright position the box is lifted using the handles and such that in an inverted position the box is lifted without using the handles.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the bottom wall of the box is hinged to the box to permit the removal and insertion of weights in an internal storage area formed within the box by the top wall, bottom wall, front wall, back wall, and first and second side walls.

8. The method of claim 5, wherein the first comparison kinesthetic experience includes the steps of:

standing in front of a box with one’s feet shoulder distance apart, back straight and elbows locked;
bending at the knees until one’s hands contact the box;
standing in front of the box with one’s feet wider than shoulder distance apart;
bending at the knees until one’s hands contact the box;
determining the amount of knee bend with one’s knees wider than shoulder distance apart compared to when one’s knees were shoulder distance apart.

9. The method of claim 5, wherein the second comparison kinesthetic experience includes the steps of:

causing a force to be applied to one’s legs with one’s feet shoulder distance apart; `causing a force to be applied to one’s legs with one’s feet wider than shoulder distance apart;
experiencing the reduced effort required to resist the force when one’s feet are wider than shoulder distance apart.

10. The method of claim 5, wherein the box in the third comparison kinesthetic experience has handles.

11. The method of claim 5, wherein the box in the third comparison kinesthetic experience has no handles, and wherein the third comparison kinesthetic experience further includes the step of tipping the box onto one of its sides before lifting the box.

12. The method of claim 5, wherein the third comparison kinesthetic experience further includes rotating the box after the box has been lifted to keep the box close to one’s body.

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. anonymous said, on October 4, 2007 at 7:31 am

    I guess the proper response today would be “Bad Patent applicant, bad!” not “Bad USPTO!”

    After all, it’s not the USPTO’s fault – they’re just the victim here of sleazy, krafty box lifters. The examiners can’t be expected to determine true patentability. They were probably just worn down by the applicant and inundated with prior art.

    Perhaps if we made the USPTO a “protected class” this abuse would stop. Jon, have you considered anti-discrimination rules?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: