The end of 2009 is rapidly approaching, and with it will come the end of the first decade of the new century and millennium. I always try and find some interesting patents to help celebrate the holidays, and given that we are wrapping up the decade I thought it might be appropriate to limit these New Year Patents to those issued since 2000. While this is not intended to be an exhaustive list, here are a few that caught my attention.

We at IPWatchdog wish everyone a Happy New Year. May 2010 be filled with happy times and wonderful memories!

New year’s ball drop
US Patent Application No. 10/749,307
Publication No. US 2005/0138851 A1
Filing date: December 30, 2003

This invention, which was never patented, relates generally to illuminated celebratory devices and, more specifically, to a New Year’s Ball Dropping down a vertical support pole reaching the bottom at a predetermined time. Upon reaching the bottom lights are activated on a year display sign and flashing the ball lights to announce the onset of the New Year’s Celebration. According to the patent application the invention overcame the short comings of the prior art by providing a New Year’s Ball Drop having a timing device assure the ball reaches its destination at a precise moment of celebration and lighting up a New Year display sign. I suspect the pole and ball drop set up in Times Square in New York City was the prior art, among other things. According to PAIR the application was abandoned on August 22, 2005 for failure to respond to the non-final Office Action. A notice of abandonment was mailed on August 26, 2005.

It is hard to believe that this year is almost over, and it is Christmas 2009!  It seems the older I get the faster the years pass, just like my parents always warned me would be the case some day.  I still remember how the minutes would drag on forever on Christmas morning waiting for my parents to get moving, make sure the lights were on and film was in the camera.  Those were the days!  In any event, we at IPWatchdog wish everyone a very Merry Christmas, and hope you all make some wonderful memories to cherish for a lifetime!

Without further ado, to help facilitate the spirit in a patent sort-of way, here are some patents that fit the season, and don’t forget to check out my all-time favorite – the Santa Claus Detector, which I profiled last Christmas.

Structural improvement of toy Christmas tree
US Patent No. 6,053,798
Filing date: August 26, 1998
Issue date: April 25, 2000

I don’t have the box handy, it seems pretty clear that this device is the famous (or infamous) Dancing Douglas Fir (see YouTube Video), or an improvement thereof. The device is explained to be a structural improvement of toy Christmas tree. The lower part of the foundation unit has a motor with intermittent off-and-on rotation controlled by a control circuit board installed in the base. The motor being linked with a reduction gear and a spring to drive a toy lower jaw part at the lower part of the foundation unit, and a driving rod to activate a toy eyebrow. According to the patent “the control circuit board will play happy music and flash LED light… while the motor will drive the eyebrows and mouth of the Christmas tree to flip up and down and open and close, to create a fun image…” My parents have a Dancing Douglas Fir, so I will have to take a look and see if there is, in fact, a patent number when I visit next week.

Fig. 1 of US Patent No. 7,627,935

Doll Urn
United States Patent 7,627,935
Issued December 8, 2009
Filed February 5, 2009

This is straight from the “you have to be kidding me” file, and for more reasons than immediately are apparent simply by looking at the invention. This invention is a doll urn, which allows for the storing of a human’s or a pet’s ashes. The invention comprises a doll body, a doll head, a doll top, and a voice recorder for recording or playing a message. Disposed in the doll head is an internal compartment, wherein a secure container for holding the ashes may be inserted into the internal compartment via an aperture on the doll head. The doll top comprises a stopper for fitting into the aperture so as to prevent ashes from spilling out of the internal compartment. In one particular version the name of the deceased is imprinted on one foot and the birth date and date of death are imprinted on the other foot (see Figure 6). As strange as this invention seems, the truly sad aspect is that it was granted in just over 10 months! So while some inventors must wait many years (i.e., 3, 4, 5, 6 or more years) this particular inventor was able to file and obtain a patent on her invention in about 10 months. While I am happy for this particular inventor, allow me to notice that something is dramatically wrong at the Patent Office if this invention can get treatment so quickly and commercially viable inventions that could form the basis for investment and business growth languish for years.

US Patent No. 6,658,665 - Disposable rainwear

Disposable rainwear
US Patent No. 6,658,665
Issued December 9, 2003

I have not been doing as many obscure patents as I once did, but I have been increasingly hearing from inventors that they miss this feature because humorous patents coupled with a story provide a good learning opportunity.  That being the case, I will try and write more about obscure patents and couple them with lessons.

This invention relates to outerwear or rain gear in the form of a cone, which is made of a substantially waterproofed material. Substantially waterproof? Who wants to buy a “substantially waterproof” raincoat? Notwithstanding, the use of that term is fine in patent law as long as it provides some relationship that can be appreciated. I don’t want to get too caught up here with legalities and miss the point that this patent covers a cone shaped garbage bag with arm holes and a face hole. In terms of commercial viability the patent explains that just about anyone would be inclined to have a spare disposable raincoat in their pocket rather than carrying around an umbrella all day long. Again, doesn’t a garbage bag work for this? Furthermore, isn’t everything disposable on some level?

Headgear for attaching toy, US Patent No. 7,621,000

It should come as no surprise, but I think software and business methods should be patentable, assuming of course that they are new and non-obvious.  There is simply no justifiable reason to carve out an exception for software or business methods, and I am getting more than just a little sick and tired of the whining and complaining from the anti-software patent crowd.  If you listen to what they say it is extremely pathetic, and oh so revealing.  The primary argument is that software patents inhibit innovation, which is pure fiction of course.  This devolves quickly into the substance of what they believe; namely that software should be free, which really means you create it and I steal it.  They whine and complain that it is unrealistic and unfair for them to have to search patents before they start writing code, as if that is any kind of justification.  Being lazy and then having the audacity to complain is nothing short of nutty.  Yes, they complain that they shouldn’t have to engage in the same business practices as every other business because they are special and software should be free.  You can see the circular, self-serving and ridiculous logic.  They think they are different, which is certainly true just not for the reasons they think.  They are so myopic that they actually believe business realities shouldn’t apply to them, only others should be required to do patent searches and respect patents.  Anyone with teenagers is likely familiar with such self serving logic and the faux victim approach to life.

It is that time of the year for Americans to give thanks for all the many things we have and enjoy — family, friends, country and of course patents!  Here is hoping that everyone has a restful, peaceful and very happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving Embossed Insert for Baking Pan
US Design Patent No. D527,217
Issued August 29, 2006

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.

Last week an IBM patent application covering an allegedly unique system and method for enhancing productivity.  I typically do not get interested in the bizarre, wacky, ridiculous patent applications that are published because all that is required to have a patent application published is the filing of something, no matter how ridiculous, and the payment of the filing fee.  My all-time favorite stupid patent application relates to a method of walking through doors, which purports to explain how to acquire sufficient hyperspace energy to pull an out of body experience necessary for walking through solid objects.  So the threshold of getting a patent application published is extremely low, and has nothing to do with whether the invention is real or works.  Nevertheless, when IBM files a patent application on something that is rather ridiculous it deserves attention for several reasons.  First, IBM has been protesting low quality patents and claiming that is a reason for needed patent reform that would make it easier to challenge issued patents.  Second, many including myself believe that the next Director of the PTO is likely going to be IBM Vice President and Assistant General Counsel, David Kappos.

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: