Jurassic Park

This article states:

The US Patent Office issued Patent # 6,872,552, "A Method of Reconstituting nucleic Acid Molecules" today to Burt D. Ensley, Ph.D, Chairman of MatrixDesign, and CEO of DermaPlus, Inc. The patent covers methods for recovering and reconstituting genes from "degraded" DNA samples, and could allow scientists to reassemble everything from prehistoric, extinct animals to unsolved crime scenes.

****

By reconstituting nucleic acid molecules that have been degraded but still contain useful information scientists at MatrixDesign are able to create a template from which to multiply the genetic material. That process is repeated until the genetic material is substantially representative -- at microscopic levels -- of the species from which the degraded sample was obtained.

Is eBay Safe?

Hmm...this article indicates that things might not be going well for MercExchange in re-exam. But again, who knows what the real story is until all is said and done.

March Madness! Patenting Sports Moves

Can you patent a sports move? What about Michael Jordan's slam dunk, Pete Sampras's serve, or Tiger Woods' swing? After all, wouldn't this be a great advantage for certain athletes? If Sampras had patented his serve, where would Andy Roddick be right now? And for every little Mary or John out there who tries to duplicate what their favorite sports celebrity does, a patent infringement complaint could land on their doorstep. Or a touchdown or slam dunk in the big game could be forfeited due to patent infringement.

The quick answer is sure, why not patent a sports move? If a sports move meets the patentability requirements of utility, novelty, and nonobviousness, then why shouldn't it get patent protection?

The longer answer is maybe and is it really necessary? There is a surprising amount of debate on the issue. After all, a sports move would be a process, procedure, or method correct? If it is useful, novel, and nonobvious, then it should qualify for patent protection, correct? Then why aren't they? Or, why hasn't this caught on? It is not unknown for a sports move to gain patent protection. Dick Fosbury, the first person to go over a high jump bar backwards revolutionized the sport of high jumping, although he was laughed at at the time. Now all high jumpers use his method. It wasn't patented, but in retrospect is was a big deal at the time. Imagine if it had been patented. Where would the high jump be today? Imagine if Michael Jordan had patented his slam dunk. Conversely, Nolan Ryan did receive a patent on his pitch, describing his pitch in excrutiating detail in his patent application.

The biggest place where sports moves see problems is the nonobvious requirement. Many people have slam dunked a basketball, so why is Michael Jordan's method so special? Many people have swung a golf club and won the Masters, so why is Tiger Woods' swing so special? And again, many people have served a 120+ mile per hour serve in tennis, so why is Pete Sampras' serve so special? Each of these examples show methods that have been improved upon in some way, to make them better than what existed before. Obvious? Maybe.

The other big problem is the time related statutory bar requirements for patentability. Public use is a big one. You can't practice your "move" in front of your teammates or that's public use. That might create some problems. Athletes would have to make sure and file that patent application pretty quickly so they don't lose their chance at patentability. Is patentability really the first thing on their minds? Doubtful.

Then, of course, there are the policy reasons behind not patenting sports moves. Is athletics really advanced by receiving patent protection for specific sports moves? For example, how do you enforce a sports moves patent? How do you get lost profits or reasonable royalties from the use of a sports move? How do you prove that "but for" the use of your move, the other player would not have achieved their financial success? How can you prove with any certainty the value of the loss of a game? How do you prove irreparable harm? And who would own the patent? The athlete (an employee of the team?) or the team? And is this really the focus of sports teams?

And what about the public? The public thrives on competition in their sports teams, New York Yankees aside. If one team has a patent on a great slam dunk or passing play, then what of competition? Part of the excitement of sports is seeing teams come up with new plays and new ways of playing the game, and seeing other teams catch on to it and improve the process. Wouldn't patenting sports moves hinder that and ruin it for the public?

At any rate, I don't know the answer. I'm against patenting sports moves, but it is an interesting question to ponder.

And a series of law review articles on this topic:

Kukkonen, C A Be a Good Sport and Refrain from using my Patented Putt: Intellectual Property Protection for Sports related Movements (1998)80 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 808.

Smith, J A It’s Your Move- No its Not!: The Application of Application of Patent Law to Sports Moves (2000) U. Colo. L. Rev. 1051.

Weber, L J Something in the Way She Moves: The Case foe Applying Copyright Protection to Sports Moves (2000) 23 Colum.-VLA J.L. & Arts 315.

Patent Chronicles

Patent Chronicles is a great blog focusing on software and business method patents and authored by a prior art searcher. Check it out!

Edited: Authored by a current prior art searcher! My bad.

Top Universities Receiving Patents

The USPTO released a list of the top universities receiving patents:

The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the top 10 U.S. universities receiving the most patents during calendar year 2004. Listed below are the 10 universities receiving the most patents for inventions in 2004, along with their 2003 ranking. The University of California tops the list for the 11th consecutive year.

Full press release here.

Patent Trolls?

This article, discussing the recent conference titled "Patent Trolls and Patent Property Rights" begins:

Intel Corp's David Simon, chief patent counsel for the world's biggest computer chipmaker, recalls when he used to get only about five letters a year from people accusing Intel of patent infringement and demanding cash.

That was back in 1997. Now the Santa Clara, California-based company gets that many letters in a week, Simon said in an interview.

He even received one from the owner of a patent for a drill used to make a hacksaw blade.

The Impossibility of Patents

This article from InformationWeek begins:

Either patents are the first line of defense for the garage-based inventor, or they're tools of the ruling class intended to block innovation and maintain lucrative monopolies. Either the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is spinning wildly out of control, or it's stretching to meet the demands of a changing business landscape. Both sides of the argument have their adherents, and both are simplistic and flawed. Patents are a fact of business life, one that many companies have to come to terms with, whether it's through litigation, settlement, or something as drastic as what eBay may be facing--a change in business model. True to form, Microsoft wants to be both patent powerhouse and arbiter of change.

Among other things, the recent eBay lawsuit is discussed.

Top Patent Prosecution Firms

Article and rankings here:

PatentRatings, LLC, a leading patent research and rating service, today released its annual list of the top U.S. patent law firms for 2004. The rankings are based on PatentRatings' proprietary IPQ(TM) patent quality scoring system, which has been proven in blind studies to have statistically significant correlation to patent quality and potential value.

The Helicopter

The inventor of the helicopter's son gave a speech at Utah Valley State College on Wednesday, where he discussed the invention of the helicopter. An article about the speech is located here, and in part, the article states:

Throughout it all, he explained the role his father played.

"There's a secret to this that the birds have been trying to teach us for a million years," he quoted his father concerning the invention of helicopters. "It is far more intelligent to stop and then land than it is to land and then try to stop."

Sikorsky's father was a Russian-born scientist who started the idea of the helicopter as a student in Paris. After building his first two models in 1909, and failing to get either one off the ground, Igor Sikorsky turned his attention to fixed-wing aircraft.

*****

It wasn't until 1939, 30 years after his first attempt, Igor Sikorsky made the worlds' first successful helicopter.

"Anything, anything that one man can imagine, other men will later make true," Sikorsky said, quoting his father.

African American Inventors

I found a fairly recent book (released last April) discussing the role of black inventors, called The Inventive Spirit of African Americans: Patented Ingenuity, by Patricia Carter Sluby, an ex patent examiner.

Here is an article about the book. In part, the article states:

Ms. Sluby's book grew out of her job as an examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. After being asked by an administrator there to put together a list of African American inventors, she began searching back through history for names. She was surprised by what she found.

"The African American inventor has invented in every subject any other person has invented in," Ms. Sluby says. "From agriculture to games to computers, they have turned around industries, bringing us a better level of living."

Design Patents

Although the requirements for design patents differ from that for utility patents, and aren't as common in litigation, no patentability blog would be complete without at least a mention of these types of patents. I've found some articles that discuss the basics:

The USPTO FAQ About Design Patents:

In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics.

Design Patents, from BitLaw:

An application for a design patent is much simpler than that for a utility patent. The specification is short and follows a predefined form. Only one claim is permitted, and it also must follow a specific form. The drawings in a design patent are similar to those in a utility patent, except that design patent drawings are created to show the ornamental features of the invention rather than its utilitarian aspects.

What Are Design Patents and When Are they Useful, from the Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society -- (note that this is a 1993 article, but it still provides some good information on design patents):

A design patent may be issued for ornamental configuration, surface decoration, or both. It must be issued for an article, however. It is also important that the design be repeatable. For example, in a case where a company had a unique method for applying a decorative coating to wallpaper to create a cloudy appearance, a design patent was refused. The basis for the refusal was that the design was not repeatable. Protecting all designs created by the process would have essentially protected the decorating method itself. Methods cannot be protected by design patents.

You've Seen the Commercials

And likely you recognize the tagline "I believe in inventing things that work." These words are spoken by James Dyson, who developed the bagless vacuum cleaner. And I tell you what, I know what he's talking about when he pulls out that dusty, dirty filter from one of his competitor's vacuum cleaners during the commercial. I desperately need a Dyson.

At any rate, if you build it, they will come, apparently. Here is an article about his success.

Blame Canada!

Just kidding.

But here's a blog you might want to check out:

Now, Why Didn't I Think of That? A patent, trade-mark, and copyright blog, by Sander Gelsing.

A Sticky Alternate Method

Here is an interesting article about a recent lawsuit 3M filed and lost, regarding its famous Post-it Notes patent. What's interesting about it is not the verdict (at least for this particular blog), but the covenant not to sue that 3M had agreed to in 1987, and the basis for it:

3M had promised not to sue Barton Nelson back in 1987. As long as Barton Nelson didn't change the way it put adhesive on custom-printed, semi-sticky promotional products, 3M wouldn't ask a court to decide whether Barton Nelson's products violated 3M's Post-it Note patent.

Both companies' notes can be easily unstuck from an adding machine or typewriter and restuck to a file folder, but each creates the "repositional" effect by a different method.

3M's adhesive contains microspheres that prevent Post-it Notes from sticking too firmly to a surface. Barton Nelson created its adhesive, CFO Bart Nelson said, and applies it in small globs with a textured roller.

"It was an aggressive adhesive, but the small-spaced dots and islands made it repositional," Nelson said.

Another Amazon Patent Controversy

Folks, Amazon just can't win. First the infamous "one-click patent" and now an uproar of negativity and accusations surrounding their new patent, which is "a system and method of determining the age of an item recipient, such a gift recipient." Again, we can see that the USPTO's focus is utility, novelty, and non-obvious -- not possible social or moral implications of a patent.

According to this article:

[Karen Coyle, a spokesperson for Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility] explained that the system outlined in the patent allows Amazon to track the age-appropriateness of gifts to a recipient over time in order to make suggestions for future gifts.

Gathering information about children for an online retailer like Amazon can be dicey because that practice is regulated by federal law, the Children's Online Privacy and Protection Act, or COPPA.

"That law states that you cannot gather personal identification information about a child without a parent's permission," Coyle said. "It looks like there's a good chance that if they were to implement this patent, which they claim they haven't, that they could come up against U.S. law."

Software Patents = Telegraph?

Phil Albert, a LinuxInsider columnist and partner at Townsend & Townsend and Crew LLP raises an interesting analogy on the software patent debate in this article:

Another way to frame the debate is to look at a relevant example from history: the Pony Express. The Pony Express was started in 1860. Teams of fast and daring horseback riders carried mail and packages across the U.S. within 10 days, which at the time was a remarkable achievement.

Unfortunately for the Pony Express riders, 18 months later Samuel Morse launched the telegraph. The telegraph was a creatively disruptive innovation, leading to even more amazing inventions such as the telephone and the Internet. The advent of the telegraph meant that the Pony Express became obsolete and all of its workers lost their jobs.

Should the telegraph have been put on hold because of its negative impact on the Pony Express?

Some Light Laser Reading

In light of Charles Townes' recent $1.5 million dollar prize, a couple of books on laser technology:

First, How the Laser Happened: Adventures of a Scientist by Charles H. Townes:

In How the Laser Happened, Nobel laureate Charles Townes provides a highly personal look at some of the leading events in twentieth-century physics. Townes was inventor of the maser, of which the laser is one example; an originator of spectroscopy using microwaves; and a pioneer in the study of gas clouds in galaxies and around stars. Throughout his career he has also been deeply engaged with issues outside of academic research.

And another viewpoint, Laser: The Inventor, the Nobel Laureate, and the Thirty-Year Patent War, by Nick Taylor:

In his latest effort, the prolific Taylor (John Glenn; In Hitler's Shadow) recounts the compelling life of Gordon Gould, a young scientist who hit upon how to build a laser in 1957. Over the 30 years he spent fighting for the patent, he neither finished his Ph.D. nor attended conferences to raise his scientific credibility. During that time, he butted up against Charles Townes, who won the Nobel Prize in physics for discovering the "optical maser," as he called it, even though courts later ruled against the U.S. patent office, arguing that Townes's original design wouldn't have worked.(Under U.S. patent law, an inventor need not reach the patent office first to claim a patent, but only show priority in writing down an idea that can be realized by someone skilled in that field. Gould fortunately had had his original notebook notarized.)

Plant Patents

Everything you ever wanted to know (well, the basics, anyway) about plant patents:

Questions and Answers About Plant Patents from Christie, Parker & Hale:

A plant patent is a grant by the government to an inventor (or his heirs or assigns) who has "invented" or discovered and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state. This grant gives the plant patent owner the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant or selling or using the plant so reproduced. The purpose of plant patents is to provide incentive for achievement in plant breeding, gardening, and horticulture.

General Info About 35 U.S.C. 161: Plant Patents from FindLaw:

This publication provides a basic and understandable overview of plant patents. It will help prospective plant patent applicants to:

• Identify what types of plants are patentable under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 161.
• Present the legal requirements for attaining a plant patent in terms which can be understood by attorneys, plant breeders, growers and gardeners.
• Present the formal requirements of an application for plant patents.
• Assist in gathering and organizing sufficient information for preparation of a plant patent application.
• Summarize the typical steps which are performed by the Patent and Trademark Office.
• Indicate where further information can be attained.

Frequently Asked Questions from PlantPatent.com:

A plant patent relates to a living plant which as a product of nature obviously cannot be "made" or "manufactured." In a utility patent (regular patent), the grant confers "the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling" the invention; in a plant patent, the grant confers "the right to exclude others from asexually reproducing the plant or selling or using the plant so reproduced, and parts thereof, as described above.

Cavity Filling Toothpaste

Millions of people around the world who hate going to the dentist are cheering right now...Japanese inventors have developed a cavity filling toothpaste:

A toothpaste has been developed that can rapidly and seamlessly fix little cavities without need for drilling.

Dental paste of synthetic tooth enamel could revolutionise treatment of tiny early lesions, says the study published today in the journal Nature by Dr Kazue Yamagishi, of the FAP Dental Institute, Tokyo.

More Software Patent Controversy

Over at the O'Reilly Misinformation Weblog, Bruce A. Epstein posts his thoughts on this article, relating to software patents in the EU. It begins:

Like almost everything I've read on the web in regard to patents, the preceding article is full of inaccuracies and opinion masquerading as fact. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. A poorly implemented patent system is bad (agreed!). But the solution is to improve the patent system, not simply discard software patents. (Disclaimer: I have a patent pending on some online collaborative database software that I've designed. The patent wouldn't cover all databases or online collaboration. It is more narrow than that, but the details aren't important for the purposes of this discussion.)

Amazon: Wrap Dolls in Pink

Gifts such as dolls should be wrapped in pink paper. Whether it is obvious or not, Amazon now holds the patent on the idea.

Amazon.com has been granted a U.S. patent on "Methods and systems of assisting users in purchasing items," including the use of gift-buying habits to determine the age, gender and birthday of gift recipients, according to a filing Tuesday with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Articles here and here.

Da Vinci's Inventions

Working models of 62 of Leonardo Da Vinci's inventions are on display at the Vienna Art Centre until May 29. Article here.

History of the USPTO

Here is an article titled "A History of the United States Patent Office," by Jason O. Watson. In part:

After several revisions and additions, various elements of both Hamilton's and Jefferson's bills resulted in the Patent Act of 1793. This Act formally created a Patent Board, comprised of the Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Secretary of War. The responsibility of the issuance of patents belonged to the Department of State (at the time under Jefferson). A patent would be issued if two-thirds of the Patent Board determined the invention as "sufficiently useful and important."11 Oftentimes the various cabinet members were not experts in any specific art or scientific field. Likewise, many were not familiar with science and technology in general (Jefferson, of course, was an exception). These men often had other pressing duties that they were occupied with. As a result, many patents were issued that perhaps should not have been while other worthy patent applications were neglected.

Funny how things change...

Pop Quiz!

How much do you know about patents? Here's a patent pop quiz, from Brown & Michaels. It's a tough one, but the answers include lots of fun patent trivia.

Who Invented Television?

A hotly contested issue! Could it be one invidual, two, or a combination of them both? According to this article:

The credit as to who was the inventor of modern television really comes down to two different people in two different places both working on the same problem at about the same time: Vladimir Kosma Zworykin, a Russian-born American inventor working for Westinghouse, and Philo Taylor Farnsworth, a privately backed farm boy from the state of Utah.

“Zworykin had a patent, but Farnsworth had a picture…”

And here's another article:

Some historians have gone so far as to suggest that Farnsworth and Zworykin should be regarded as "co-inventors." But that conclusion ignores Zworykin's 1930 visit to Farnsworth's lab, where many witnesses heard Zworykin say "I wish that I might have invented it." Moreover, it ignores the conclusion of the patent office, in its 1935 decision in Interference #64,027, which states quite clearly "priority of invention awarded to Farnsworth."

****

But close examination of the stories beneath the written record reveals a far more compelling story: In fact, there was one inventor of electronic television. Video as we now know it first took root in the mind of Philo T. Farnsworth when he was fourteen years old, and he was the first to successfully demonstrate the principle, in his lab in San Francisco on September 7, 1927. If you need to fix a date on which television was invented, that's the date.

And Speaking of Thomas Edison...

Did he really invent everything we think he invented? Some people don't think so. Full article here.

“He was a thief — a pirate,” alleges Walt Zaczeck, a historian in Niagara Falls, N.Y.

Zaczeck believes that Edison took credit for many inventions his lab workers found first. “He hired people to work for him and he would use their ideas and then get patents for them,” Zaczeck said. “And that’s why he’s considered a great inventor?"

*****

At 59, Tesla was informed that he was to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics along with Thomas Edison. Edison refused to share his award with Tesla, and the award was given to another scientist.

The Light Bulb

Here is an article titled "Ten Things You May Not Know About Lightbulbs." Number one on the list?

1. The incandescent light bulb was first patented by Joseph Swan in New Castle, England, then by Thomas A. Edison in 1879. Most historians believe that Edison perfected the light bulb, but that he didn’t invent it.

Did Bell Really Invent the Telephon?

Alexander Graham Bell v. Elisha Gray. This article discusses just how close the patent race was for invention of the telephone. In part:

Presumably, Bell’s device as described in his patent application would not have operated properly whereas Gray’s design as presented in his caveat would have been successful. (Given his reluctance to file a patent application, Bell might have realized the problem with his design.) Moreover, Bell’s first successful transmission of a human voice on March 9, 1876, relied on the use of acid as a liquid transmitter, similar to the transmitter envisioned by Gray but not included in Bell’s patent application.

Bell was awarded the patent rights to the telephone, partly because of the differences between a patent application and a caveat, and the corresponding conviction that he was the first to invent the device. The U.S. patent system awards those who are first-to-invent and not those who are first-to-file, and so Bell’s victory was not simply the result of an earlier filing time. And Bell also was the first to successfully demonstrate his invention.

What Kids Want to Invent

This is kind of a cute article from The Flint Journal, where kids discuss what they would like to invent. Although there may be some patentability issues with many of these inventions, it's a humorous read. The top picks seem to be money, homework, and chores machines/robots, but there are some gems:

Sarah Doty, 7 I would invent a bird that makes my bed and does my chores.

Jaycie Montney, 8 My invention is Popsicle's that don't melt. Take juices and put it in liquid nitrogen. It will last for a week and a half, or more.

Andrea Clark, 6 I'd like to invent a big bouncy bubble. That has a door that goes into it, and it has a lock on the inside. The lock is so you don't fall out. It would bounce really high!

Chelsea Schwerin, 8 Wow! I'm an inventor! If I could invent something, I would invent a friend detector. I would invent it so that if you needed a friend, you could go to places and figure out which people are nice and which are mean and find a friend.

Ta'Nia Barnes, 11 I would like to invent a machine that would stop people from killing people and a machine that would help everybody have an education and a job.

Timothy Waite, 7 If I invented a machine, it would turn us small. I could buy me and everyone toys. I like toys.

Derrick Miller, 12 I'd like to invent a machine that would make cool clothes. The clothes would not only be cool but awesome, too.

Nick Bednark, 7 If I could build an invention, I would rebuild the Titanic. It would be 100 times thicker than last time. It would have a two-way radio and 100 lifeboats. Workers on my Titanic would be trained to go in the lifeboats. There would also be motors on the lifeboats.

Adam Bartholomew, 7 I would invent a toy that had the head of a toy camel. Also, it would have the body of a toy army man. Also, the toy would have the legs and tail of a Siberian tiger.

Wade Tinnin, 11 I'd like to invent a machine that makes hamsters. It will make hamsters so my mom will let me get one. She said I have to buy it myself. So if I had a hamster machine, I could get one for free.

Is This The Same Re-exam?

I suppose it all depends on how you spin it. Can you determine who really "lost" in this re-exam?

Visto, whose patent was challenged, announced:

Visto Corporation, a leading global provider of secure push email, today announced that the United States Patent & Trademark Office has upheld a majority of the claims contained within Visto's U.S. Patent No. 6,085,192 in the re-examination of that patent requested by Seven Networks, Inc. After considering Seven's request and assessing the merits of the patent, the Patent Office determined in its first office action that at least 15 of the patent's 25 claims are valid. This includes the claims at issue in Visto's ongoing patent infringement litigation against Seven in federal district court in Marshall, Texas.

And Seven, the opposing party announced:

Today, SEVEN announced that the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") rejected the base claims of Visto Corporation's US Patent 6,085,192. After conducting its review, the PTO found that all of the independent claims of the '192 Patent were unpatentable in view of prior art references asserted by SEVEN.