Stupid Patent Department?

[Blue Mountain]

Folks, this statement is gobbledygook, pure nonsense, codswallop, written by an uninformed person who doesn’t understand the concept of hyperspace, energy, or dimension. But notice that it was accepted by the USPTO without question… This is just another example of the incredible ineptitude of the USPTO. You can patent literally anything if you pay the fee. I'm thinking Randi is confused between a patent application, which the USPTO may be legally required to accept and publish, versus a grant, which means the department has given a patent to the person for the invention in question.

Randi's commentary says specifically this is an application. Note the number: it starts with 2006 and goes on for another seven digits. It's clearly not a patent itself; currently they're only seven digits long, somewhere in 5,000,000 range, I think.

Since this is only an application, there may not be too much to be worried about.

Mind you, this is the same office that granted a patent for a method for exercising a cat (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html)--using a laser pointer.

[Spindrift]

I'm thinking Randi is confused between a patent application, which the USPTO may be legally required to accept and publish, versus a grant, which means the department has given a patent to the person for the invention in question.

Randi's commentary says specifically this is an application. Note the number: it starts with 2006 and goes on for another seven digits. It's clearly not a patent itself; currently they're only seven digits long, somewhere in 5,000,000 range, I think.

Since this is only an application, there may not be too much to be worried about.

Mind you, this is the same office that granted a patent for a method for exercising a cat (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html)--using a laser pointer.

Well it may be an application but they will almost patent anything. I have my name on a patent from a company I used to work for. One day an attorney came around and asked what we were working on. He took some notes and left. A couple weeks later he came back and said he need more info for the patent app. I said we can patent this? And he said you can patent almost anything. He said, the USPTO is so backlogged that unless it is easily recognizable as something that was previously patented they will issue a patent and let the courts decide over it's true validity.

So I have a nice patent plaque to hang on my office wall, even though I think it's totally bogus.

[Beady]

Mind you, this is the same office that granted a patent for a method for exercising a cat (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5443036.html)--using a laser pointer.

The Prime Directive in government applications states that the applicant gets the benefit if they qualify for it.

Is there a reason you feel the "cat exerciser" doesn't qualify for a patent, according to the rules set down by your elected representatives?

[Horatius]

I e-mailed Mr. Randi with a similar comment, and he indicated that he'd post a correction. But as mentioned, the USPTO does have a history of patenting almost anything.

If you think the cat exerciser is bad, try looking for US Patent 6360693, which is for an "animal toy". A literal reading of the broadest claim would have you infringing the patent if you and your dog were to play "fetch" with a stick.

Here's the text of the first claim:

1. An animal toy, comprising:
(a) a solid main section having a diameter and a longitudinal length and extending a predetermined distance along said longitudinal length; and
(b) at least one protrusion attached at one end thereof said main section and extending a predetermined distance therefrom and wherein said at least one protrusion includes a second longitudinal axis that is not in parallel alignment with a first longitudinal axis of said solid main section;
and wherein said animal toy is adapted to float on the water.


And it's not like they tried to hide it.....the cover page has a picture of a stick on it!

[rjh01]

Just had a brain wave. How to close down psychics. Put a patent on their tools and methods. Then sue for breech of patent.

[bjb]

The patent should be novel and unobvious. It also needs to be new. If everyone is already excercising their cat with a laser pointer, it does not deserve to be protected by a patent because the patent conflicts with prior art (someone buying a laser pointer and using it to play with thei cat).

[Horatius]

The patent should be novel and unobvious. It also needs to be new. If everyone is already excercising their cat with a laser pointer, it does not deserve to be protected by a patent because the patent conflicts with prior art (someone buying a laser pointer and using it to play with thei cat).


The pratical problem, from an examination standpoint, is, how do you search on what "everyone" is already doing? I don't often publish how I play with my cat (although I do have one picture of him trying to walk on the top molding of a doorway). Do you?

We can make arguments based on "common knowlege" in the art, but these are much weaker than arguments which can point to a published document.

I've always thought that patent laws shold be amended to have a "you've got to be kidding!" clause for cases like these.