There are issued US patents for virtually ever occasion, and certainly for every holiday.  I like to try and profile holiday patents, which are always interesting if not outright funny at times.  So with no further ado, I give you some Halloween Patents!  Happy Halloween everyone, and safe trick-or-treating kids!

Halloween Costume

Climate Adaptive Halloween Costume
US Patent No. 6,904,612
Issued June 14, 2005

When I saw this picture I knew it had to be included in any compilation of Halloween patents! The costume is made up of a first garment base, which generally defines the shape of at least a portion of a Halloween character. This under-garment has insulating material is disposed over at least a portion. The second garment layer is secured to the first garment and the second garment together with the first garment layer defines the complete shape on the Halloween character. The second garment also has a venting material which functions as a ventilator for the Halloween costume. The costume also has at least one decorative member secured to either the first or the second garment layers, and which further outlines the appearance of the Halloween character.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I do not see a huge market for animal chastity belts. We have a dog, and we are dog lovers. We enjoy walking through pet stores and spoil her rotten. I cannot say that I have seen an animal chastity belt in any of my trips to any pet store. Maybe there is an underground market for these devices, and maybe the inventors get rich and are laughing all the way to the bank. Nevertheless, I must observe that it seems extremely likely that the inventors of these and many other similar devices are failing to ask the all important and critical question — is there a market for your invention and can you make money? In the case where there is a crowded field, and believe it or not animal chastity belts would qualify as a crowded field, it is essential for inventors to ask themselves (and to be honest with themselves) with respect to whether their innovation presents advantages significant enough over what is available in the prior art and those products already on the market. It might be that your invention works, but that no one would be interested in buying it.

Squirrel teasing hanger assembly for a bird feeder [PDF ] [ HTML ]
US Patent No. 6,619,229
Issued September 16, 2003

The patent explains that several types of bird feeders have been designed for preventing unwanted animals such as squirrels from eating the bird food in the feeder. The purpose of this invention, however, is not to get rid of the unwanted animal, such as a squirrel, but rather to toy with the squirrel. The patent explains that the prior art repelling devices are inappropriate for use by the person who does not wish to repel the squirrels from the bird feeder. The individual who desires to tease or play with the squirrel without necessarily repelling the squirrel should try this invention.

Scriptured outdoor furniture [ PDF ] [ HTML ]
US Patent No. 6,705,334
Issued March 16, 2004

I am almost speechless. This “invention” covers furniture with scripture passages displayed thereon. The broadest claim, however, includes an umbrella, chair, table and much more, so I suppose if you were to just print scripture on an umbrella you would not be infringing. For the life of me I just cannot see how this is or should be patentable. Perhaps the addition of the scripture is a misdirection, and the real invention was the collection of routine lawn furniture into a single claim. That in and of itself would be a little scary given that the combination of a table, chair and umbrella is extremely well known in the prior art. That being the case, and taken together with all of the utility claims in the patent, which relate to an invention that allows for the display of scripture, I am left only to wonder what happened here. Why doesn’t a director’s chair (i.e., a folding chair with the word “director” across the back) render this obvious? The invention here seems to be nothing more than an ornamental design, which is and should be protected through a design patent, not a utility patent.  I would hope that under the new KSR guidelines this sort of thing couldn’t be patented moving forward.

To see other obscure patents go to the Museum of Obscure Patents

I will be officially on vacation from Monday July 27, 2009, through Sunday, August 2, 2009, and then Monday, August 3, 2009, is a travel day to get to Chicago for the last PLI Patent Bar Review Course of the summer, which will take place from from Tuesday, August 4, 2009, through Saturday, August 8, 2009, at John Marshall Law School.  Nevertheless, in order to keep things current, I have prepared a number of posts that are scheduled to go live at various times during my vacation.  Having said this, I am also extremely likely to blog regarding the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of David Kappos on Wednesday, July 29, 2009.  And to think I was sure that with Sotomayor, health care and cap and trade I would actually be able to go on vacation without any major patent news event interrupting.  Oh well, at least it is at 10am, which is 7am in the morning California time, so I might even be able to get something up before breakfast is even over, then enjoy the remainder of my vacation.  Here is hoping!

So, as part one of my vacation series, without further ado I present to you some of the most interesting patent drawings I could find.  Which is your favorite?

On that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this new brave world we need to go case by case and determine for every invention whether it would be within the common sense knowledge base of someone of skill in the art. But what is common sense exactly?  If the teaching, suggestion and motivation test was viewed by the high court as being inappropriate, how could any rational individual who is informed about the patent process think that a “common sense” based test would be better?  Patent examiners are skilled at reviewing prior art and interpreting claims, but the overwhelming majority are not lawyers, and even if they were attorneys, a test that means different things to different people is hardly calculated to lead to uniformity and similarly situated people being treated similarly.  The last time I checked that is still what the US Constitution requires, unless I missed something tucked away in some legislation that wasn’t read before voted on and signed into law.

US Patent No. 5,868,140
Issued February 9, 1999

This patent covers a method and apparatus for implantation of a testicular prosthetic device, with the patient being a pet, such as a dog!  I am not going to say much about this one. The patent speaks for itself. I don’t know whether this is or should be patentable, but it seems reasonable to assume that it met the patentability requirements, or at least reasonable that it could have done so. What is worth commenting on, however, is that the owner of this invention seems to be running a thriving business. Yes, it would appear as if people are willing to pay to have their pet receive testicular implants so that the pet can achieve greater self esteem. I am going to just write this one up as proof that some people have too much time and money on their hands. I wonder if his business has taken a hit during the recession? The website says that over 225,000 people worldwide have given their pet this important, self esteem boosting gift. I would have to think that testicular implants to raise the image of a pet has to be considered among the first expenditures to go, right?  If you have enough money to be doing this I would have to say you are so rich you don’t know how else to spend your money.  I am not a fan of higher taxes on anyone, but maybe we should impose a tax on pet self esteem procedures, such as this one, so we can pay for health care.

Today is the day we celebrate our Independence some 233 years ago.  What better time to take a look and see what patents exist with an Independence theme.  It would seem that in preparation for the Centennial celebration there were a number of individuals who were quite interested in obtaining design patents.  The one below caught my eye in particular, I am not exactly sure why.  Perhaps I am being overly sentimental, but as I read this particular patent a certain pride seems to shine through in the words.  We can poke fun all we like at the inventions of others, but as an inventor myself I know how much of yourself goes into an invention.  It becomes a project like none other, and while any particular idea or invention might seem odd to you, to the inventor it is a piece of themselves.  This particular design patent, Design No. 8310 entitled “Design for fans,” seemed to capture both a great pride in America, as well as pride in what has been created, and for that reason I selected it above all others.  The fact that it also includes a bit of poetry is just a bonus.

US Patent No. 7,536,731

So much has been made about the United States Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex, which happened just over 2 years ago.  Occasionally I like to take a look at how the Patent Office is handling KSR.  Admittedly, this is not a scientific study, and is more aimed at having fun and perhaps also explaining so we never forget just how absurd the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR actually was.  Those familiar with the KSR decision and history will recall that the non-patent experts on the Supreme Court, including Justice Antonin Scalia who openly admitted he didn’t understand patent law during oral arguments — calling patents “gobbledygook,” decided to completely do away with an objective, understandable and repeatable test in favor of a completely subjective test without any concrete boundaries.  Yes, in their infinite wisdom the Supreme Court decided that the law of what is obvious should be conducted on a case by case analysis and an invention is obvious if it is “common sense.”

Adjustable elevated serving tray for pets
US Patent No. 7,207,290
Issued April 24, 2007

Now I think I have officially seen everything!  An adjustable serving tray for pets?  What is even more surprising is that according to the Background of the Invention this is a fairly crowded field of technology, with elevated pet feeders being well known.  Who knew?  Apparently it is not healthy for an animal, particularly a larger animal such as a large dog, to eat off the floor.  The Background also says that crawling insects can also easily get into the pets food when the bowl is on the ground.  I am sure that is a problem in at least some situations, but exactly how is it that an ant or other small insect would not be able to crawl up the leg of this adjustable tray?

Subterranean termite detection
US Patent No. 6,526,692
Issued March 4, 2003

Here is an interesting obscure patent from IPWatchdog past, but one too good to miss.  This originally caught my eye while reading the New York Times. The article in the Times is titled: Using Termite Flatulence Against Them. This all seemed like a joke, but it must be true, right? Just the same, and perhaps in light of the time recent past, I decided to verify. It does seem that the United States Patent Office has granted a patent apparatus and method for detecting the presence of wood destroying subterranean termites. Apparently, when wood destroying termites are present they generate combustible gas, which can be detected by the combustible gas detector. I don’t know enough about the state of the art in flatulence to issue an opinion on whether this is a “true” invention that warrants the mantle of US Patent, but it was just too good to pass up and had to enter the Museum of Obscure Patents.

Collar apparatus enabling secure handling of a snake by tether
US Patent No. 6,490,999
Issued December 10, 2002

This invention is one of the all-time greats in the Obscure Patent category, and is back by popular demand (or at least the request of a longtime IPWatchdog.com reader).  As in practically all patents, there are multiple claims. The first claim and those depending from the first claim relate to the collar apparatus that allows for controlling the snake. While that is funny enough, no doubt, the real knee slapping humor associated with this invention comes when you read that claim 11 covers a system for walking a snake! (See picture above). In order to keep this appropriate for family fun I will allow you, the reader, to insert your own joke here. Now, with that laugh over, what in the world was the inventor thinking?

Bathing Poncho
US Patent No. 7,509,689
Issued: March 31, 2009

I am almost speechless, which does not happen often.  I came across this patent over the weekend.  It was NFL Draft weekend, which means that I was parked in front of the TV all weekend.  Between picks, and while waiting for a pick from the Dallas Cowboys that never came on Saturday, I was flipping through some recently issued patents online.  I found some really interesting inventions, so good patents that I can use to teach with and a handful of patents that just make you want to scratch your head.  Lets just say that this particular patent fell into the last category.  The photograph initially caught my attention, and then the name “Bathing poncho” piqued my interest even further.  Why would anyone want to wear a poncho while bathing?  Thankfully, the patent answered this question in the Description of the Related Art, explaining:

 Over the last several years the patent allowance rate has fallen from about 70% of applications becoming patents to a low of 42% of patent applications becoming issued patents.  During this same time the Patent Office has continued to proclaim that quality has risen, which everyone in the industry knows to be false.  The real tragedy is that the Supreme Court was supposed to have solved the problem of stupid patents with its decision in KSR v. Teleflex.  I am not a fan of the Supreme Court’s ruling because obviousness is now based on common sense, which means we might as well be back to the requirement that an invention display a “flash of creative genius,” which was specifically legislated out of the patent laws in 1952.  But if the Patent Office really has achieved unprecedented quality, and the Supreme Court has staked the deck against those inventions that are just ordinary, uninspired and not new, then we should not have stupid patents issued any more, right?  Think again!  At a time when many start-up companies cannot get patents issued and are unable to attract investors, not much has changed on the silly invention front.

Finger mounted insect dissuasion device and method of use
US Patent No. 7,484,328
Issued: February 3, 2009

Pet umbrella and combined pet leash
US Patent No. 6,871,616
Issued October 28, 2003

Before I start getting to deep, allow me to point out that I am a animal lover and a dog person. That being said, I think this takes things just a little bit too far. Dog lovers always spoil their pets, but an umbrella specifically designed to keep a K-9 dry? In my home our dog – Daisy – has become something of a “treat snob,” now only liking certain treats and not others. What a life?!?! Anyway, I digress. A dog to a dog person is much more than a pet I suppose, but a personal umbrella for the dog? Now I think that is just a little bit over the top, or perhaps just farther than I am willing to personally go.  I love you Daisy, but a special umbrella just for you is probably not in the cards anytime soon.

Environmental friendly animal excrement collector
US Patent No. 7,461,616
Issued December 9, 2008

Every once in a while I come across a patent that I know is going to become one of my all-time favorites, and this is certainly one of those patents.  This may be the most ingenious of all inventions and I would still want to include it in my collection of Obscure Patents simply because of the primary patent drawing, shown to the left.  Maybe the dogs I have had my entire are not the target audience because I know for sure that none of them would ever stand there quietly wearing a contraption like this.  The thought of trying to get this on a dog and then what the dog would do to try and get it off is running through my head like a Seinfeld episode that never grows old.  This invention appears to be something of a colostomy bag dogs!  But if the invention works the way it seems like it is intended to work then I say all the neighbor dogs should be forced to wear one of these things so that they stop messing up my lawn!

Carry-out food container
US Patent No. 7,451,889
Issued November 18, 2008

Did you know that on Tuesday, November 18, 2008, a carry out food container was patented? I discussed this patent in a post last week titled Unequal Treatment at the US Patent Office, where I discussed the unfair and inequal treatment that seems to be plaguing the Patent Office.  After all, how could the USPTO, which is always congratulating itself for quality, issue a patent like this and refuse to issue patents to commercially relevant inventions?  I don’t know and I hope someone does something about it, but I am not holding my breath.  In any event, I just couldn’t leave this only mentioned in the aforementioned post, but rather I had to add it to the Museum of Obscure Patents.

Packaging diaper with deceptive size
United States Patent 7,243,477
Issued July 17, 2007

So you think you have an idea regarding what this patent is by looking at the picture? I can guarantee that this picture provides absolutely no clues whatsoever. This patent covers a method of disguisedly packaging a diaper! See, I told you that you could not possibly have any idea based on the image above, which actually was the primary image printed on the first page of the patent.

Believe it or not, this patent on disposable boxer shorts was issued on April Fools Day 2003! The fact that this patent issued on April Fools Day is rather appropriate and does certainly demonstrate that someone in the Patent Office has a sense of humor. The Background of the Invention starts by saying: “The need for clean underwear is almost universal.” I suppose a truer statement could not be made. Apparently the problem that is being solved by this invention is the difficulting in preparing clean underwear when traveling and/or camping. Nevertheless, I still have to question whether a pair of boxer shorts made out of tissue paper satisfies the patentability requirements. Finally, on some level aren’t all boxer shorts disposable?