Bi-digital O-ring test for imaging and diagnosis of internal organs
US Patent No. 5,188,107 [ PDF ] [ HTML ]
Issued February 23, 1993
This is an oldie, but a goodie! When I first profiled this patent back in 2003 I wrote this:
“I am almost at a complete loss as to how to describe this patent. This one absolutely must fall into the WHAT WAS THE EXAMINER THINKING category. Perhaps this is more indicative of an examiner in need of an issuance in order to make their quarterly bonus. In any event, this invention (if you can call it that) relates to a method for imaging an internal organ of a patient. In order to overcome the prior art problems associated with harmful radiation, the inventor has devised a method through which the patient and health care provider create an O-ring using thier index finger and thumb. The patient and health care provider entangle their finger/thumb O-rings and then hover them over the part of the patients body that needs to be imaged. I guess the thought is that the electromagnetic radiation running through all of us will somehow beam through the patients body and result in an image being produced on a film. This patent seems to be living proof that utility is no bar to patentability whatsoever, unless you claim a perpetual motion machine, which by the way might well be more believable than this so-called invention.”
Clothes Protection System [ HTML] [ PDF ]
US Patent No. 7,350,239
Issued April 1, 2008
The United States Patent Office issues some real interesting patents on a regular basis, but over the years it has become apparent that there are those within the Patent Office with a real sense of humor. April Fools day is a national day for pranks, and not to be left out the Patent Office seems to like to issues crazy inventions on April 1. This invention is a case in point. On April 1, 2008, a US patent was issued on what appears to be a bib. You simply open up the opening and put your neck into the center opening and then close around your neck using a Velcro securing mechanism.
This is an interesting invention indeed. I am not posting this to poke fun of the invention, but rather because it is certainly unique. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that inventions are intended to provide exclusive rights for inventors to insulate themselves from competition. So any patent that covers a product that has a market can be extremely useful to the inventor. Now I have no particular knowledge about whether there is a market for this invention, but it does seem at least as interesting as much of the merchandise on sale at your neighborhood Spencer Gifts. So I would have to give this invention a thumbs up because it is interesting and seems likely that with proper placement it could result in sales.
Bi-axial rotating magnetic therapeutic device
US Patent No. 6,648,812 [ PDF ] [ HTML ]
Issued November 18, 2003
This device varies magnetic field intensity by rotating a single magnet about two axes at the same time.This could be a legitimate, real invention, if only it were claimed as a human amusement device, or a device for sucking money from desperate individuals in search of a cure.The problem is that it has been claimed as “a therapeutic magnetic device.”That being the case, the invention must be useful for its claimed purpose, otherwise a utility rejection under 35 USC 101 and an enablement rejection under 35 USC 112 should issue.The patent itself addresses this by explaining that books have been written supporting the efficacy of magnetic therapy.What the patent fails to point out is that books have also been written about alien abduction and the fact that man never really landed on the moon.
I find myself almost completely overwhelmed by sadness. How is it possible that the patent system has fallen so far that patents on inventions like this one can be issued? In fact, patents such as this one are not only issued, they are issued every week! When teaching patent prosecution I always point out that sometimes the most simple inventions are the ones that present the biggest problems with respect to finding prior art. It seems that everyone wants to write about cutting edge stuff, so finding a reference in writing that talks about a swing moving side to side can be near impossible. That being said, how is it that anyone at the Patent Office could not find a reference that demonstrates that this “invention” is not patentable? This invention is only a color coded system!
Skin-irritating game machine [ PDF ]
US Patent No. 6,561,905 Issued May 13, 2003
This one is almost too good to be true! Bring on the electro-shock treatment. This patent covers the invention of a hand-held electronic game that outputs a voltage to irritate the skin of a player who loses. Can you imagine the lawsuits this would create if it were ever to be marketed? Even if the product is relatively safe there would certainly be product liability suits, and the children rights activists would have a field day against parents who would actually buy an electro-shock game boy. From a patent standpoint I wonder whether this should be patentable. The subject matter seems fine, and utility is no problem, but while I cannot place the reference I am sure I have seen some B movies that have included devices similar to this one, and I would bet that some psychology students somewhere have tried this, or something similar, in a controlled environment.
The issuance of this patent on April Fools Day shows that someone at the Patent Office has a sense of humor. This patent also reminds me of one of my all-time favorite obscure patents - Disposable boxer shorts – which was patented also on April Fools Day, just 5 years earlier.
In any event, what we have here is not at all unique. This particular invention is simply a garment having an inside out appearance. How in the name of all that is right and proper could something like this be patented? I have absolutely no idea.
We can all sit here and poke fun at this patent, pointing out the obvious problems, such as the fact that clothing that is turned inside out is not really new or unique. In fact I would venture to say that during the course of a week we all have at least one article of clothing that is inside out in our hamper or laundry basket. But poking such fun, which mildly entertaining, is not really enlightening.
Just over one year ago the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the already famous (or perhaps it is better to say infamous) matter of KSR v. Teleflex. In that case the Supreme Court ostensibly made it more difficult to obtain a patent. The US Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was to rigid. No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons. Now we 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.
Head mounted letter “M” [ PDF ]
US Patent No.6,834,453 Issued December 28, 2004
Searching for obscure patents can sometimes seem like looking for a needle in a haystack. Certainly, there are no shortage of patents that get issued on a weekly basis that should never have seen the light of day. Unfortunately, invalid patents are increasingly becoming a way of life. Occasionally, however, a holy grail of obscurity is stumbled across. Finding and reading such wacky patents makes the journey through the hundreds of thousands of patents issued yearly all worth while. This particular patent is one of those rare finds. Spotting a patent like this is both fun, entertaining and tremendously sad. How in the name of all that is right in the world could the United States Patent Office issue a patent on a modified letter “M”? Giving the USPTO the benefit of the doubt, this letter “M” is worn on the head of the user. To quote Charlie Brown… “GOOD GRIEF.”
The Background of the Invention explains:
It is an object of the present invention to provide a display that is adapted to be mounted onto the head of a fan and which is provided with the shape of a letter “M” that has some association with a particular team. For example, the Seattle Mariners baseball team is commonly referred to as the “M’s.” It is an object of the invention to provide a display in the shape of a “M” that is adapted to be self-secured to the head of a fan, so that, for example, the fan can wear it to a game or elsewhere.
How to Write a Patent Application is a must own for patent attorneys, patent agents and law students alike. A crucial hands-on resource that walks you through every aspect of preparing and filing a patent application, from working with an inventor to patent searches, preparing the patent application, drafting claims and more. The treatise is continuously updated to address relevant Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decision impacting patent drafting.
Bi-digital O-ring test for imaging and diagnosis of internal organs
