Comments on: Obscure Patent: Disposable Rainwear http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:33:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/#comment-9764 Gene Quinn Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:57:08 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7591#comment-9764 Barry- I don't think I was harsh, but certainly you are entitled to your opinion. The invention is clearly useful in patent terms. Perhaps I could have made that clearer, but here is what is said in the article: "Here, while the invention may be silly, there is more utility than just being disposable. The function is the same as any other raincoat." I tend to think this patent is the exact reason we have to deal with KSR now, and likely the exact type of invention that KSR should prevent from being patented. I also still think the inventor made a bad choice in deciding to obtain patent, unless they were looking for validation by the US government and perhaps to frame and hang the patent on the wall. -Gene Barry-

I don’t think I was harsh, but certainly you are entitled to your opinion.

The invention is clearly useful in patent terms. Perhaps I could have made that clearer, but here is what is said in the article:

“Here, while the invention may be silly, there is more utility than just being disposable. The function is the same as any other raincoat.”

I tend to think this patent is the exact reason we have to deal with KSR now, and likely the exact type of invention that KSR should prevent from being patented. I also still think the inventor made a bad choice in deciding to obtain patent, unless they were looking for validation by the US government and perhaps to frame and hang the patent on the wall.

-Gene

]]> By: Barry http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/#comment-9763 Barry Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:43:37 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7591#comment-9763 A bit harsh Gene? Josh is clearly just trying to clarify that there are different kinds of utility. I was also left with the impression after your piece that you were complaining about the actual usefulness of the invention. A bit harsh Gene? Josh is clearly just trying to clarify that there are different kinds of utility. I was also left with the impression after your piece that you were complaining about the actual usefulness of the invention.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/#comment-9731 Gene Quinn Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:26:16 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7591#comment-9731 Bloke- You are probably right. I wasn't trying to comment on whether this should have been patented, but rather trying to talk about whether an inventor should seek a patent. Just because an invention can be described as different and therefor patentable doesn't mean that consumers will choose to purchase. I think a lot of inventors fail to consider the business side of things. Cheers. -Gene Bloke-

You are probably right. I wasn’t trying to comment on whether this should have been patented, but rather trying to talk about whether an inventor should seek a patent. Just because an invention can be described as different and therefor patentable doesn’t mean that consumers will choose to purchase. I think a lot of inventors fail to consider the business side of things.

Cheers.

-Gene

]]> By: IPBloke http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/#comment-9728 IPBloke Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:32:27 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7591#comment-9728 "I still have to wonder why a garbage back is not a suitable substitute". Not as simple as it appears...as always the devil is in the details. Certainly garbage bags have/are used as raincoats and certainly everything is disposable. Your garbage bag might read 102 if your it was cone-shaped and had perforations as described. Probably could find one that is cone shaped but unlikely to find a garbage bag with perforations (rather goes against the purpose of a garbage bag). Your rejection would thus more than likely have to be a 103. If the base reference were just to a garbage bag you would be hard pressed to find a good reason to add perforations to the garbage bag such that it did not destroy the base reference (MPEP 2143.01 section V). But if your base reference disclosed use a bag as a raincoat (not hard to find, as you say this is common) then you could propose a modification under 103 to add perforations for arm and face holes (again findable IMHO). I suppose you could argue that the cone shaped is a design choice however it appears that it has a function as it keeps the face hole in the proper location relative to the face. Just my 2 cents. “I still have to wonder why a garbage back is not a suitable substitute”.
Not as simple as it appears…as always the devil is in the details. Certainly garbage bags have/are used as raincoats and certainly everything is disposable.
Your garbage bag might read 102 if your it was cone-shaped and had perforations as described. Probably could find one that is cone shaped but unlikely to find a garbage bag with perforations (rather goes against the purpose of a garbage bag). Your rejection would thus more than likely have to be a 103. If the base reference were just to a garbage bag you would be hard pressed to find a good reason to add perforations to the garbage bag such that it did not destroy the base reference (MPEP 2143.01 section V). But if your base reference disclosed use a bag as a raincoat (not hard to find, as you say this is common) then you could propose a modification under 103 to add perforations for arm and face holes (again findable IMHO). I suppose you could argue that the cone shaped is a design choice however it appears that it has a function as it keeps the face hole in the proper location relative to the face. Just my 2 cents.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/#comment-9726 Gene Quinn Mon, 07 Dec 2009 14:53:54 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7591#comment-9726 Josh- You write as if I have said something incorrect, which we both know I did not. Why? You say: "there is no requirement that the patent be practical..." In the article I wrote: "The patent laws are set up so as to encourage the progress of innovation and advancement in technology, but not every invention needs to be an advance. This means that it is possible to obtain a patent on an invention that is not as good as other solutions..." Did you even read the article or did you rush to get in a comment to get a link back to your website? -Gene Josh-

You write as if I have said something incorrect, which we both know I did not. Why?

You say: “there is no requirement that the patent be practical…”

In the article I wrote: “The patent laws are set up so as to encourage the progress of innovation and advancement in technology, but not every invention needs to be an advance. This means that it is possible to obtain a patent on an invention that is not as good as other solutions…”

Did you even read the article or did you rush to get in a comment to get a link back to your website?

-Gene

]]> By: Josh S. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/06/obscure-patent-disposable-rainwear/id=7591/#comment-9720 Josh S. Mon, 07 Dec 2009 03:37:24 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7591#comment-9720 I actually think that you have conflated two separate kinds of utility recognized by courts: operability and practical/specific utility. When you are talking in terms of perpetual motion machines, you are actually talking about operability, which requires that an invention do what it is claimed to do. Although you discuss the potential market for the invention here, there is no requirement that the patent be practical (e.g., you could patent the process of turning diamonds to coal). Specific utility, on the other hand, focuses on how much the inventor knew at the time of application. The standard is that the utility must be specific, substantial, and credible. To be sufficiently specific, the utility must be related to the invention. To be sufficiently substantial, there must be a significant and present benefit to the public from the invention. In some countries there is also a beneficial utility requirement, which is a way of smuggling morality into the patent system (when you're not trying to smuggle it in through patentable subject matter limits). When America had such a requirement, it usually involved machines for gambling, but beneficial utility is no longer a requirement. I actually think that you have conflated two separate kinds of utility recognized by courts: operability and practical/specific utility. When you are talking in terms of perpetual motion machines, you are actually talking about operability, which requires that an invention do what it is claimed to do. Although you discuss the potential market for the invention here, there is no requirement that the patent be practical (e.g., you could patent the process of turning diamonds to coal).

Specific utility, on the other hand, focuses on how much the inventor knew at the time of application. The standard is that the utility must be specific, substantial, and credible. To be sufficiently specific, the utility must be related to the invention. To be sufficiently substantial, there must be a significant and present benefit to the public from the invention.

In some countries there is also a beneficial utility requirement, which is a way of smuggling morality into the patent system (when you’re not trying to smuggle it in through patentable subject matter limits). When America had such a requirement, it usually involved machines for gambling, but beneficial utility is no longer a requirement.

]]>