The collaboration and conversation facilitated by the use of blogs and videos were really interesting to utilize in this class.
Too often in other courses the tangible essays or tests that we take are often thrown away or shoved under some shelves after the class is over. The use of blogs and videos on the internet allows the materials that we create to be easily accessible for us to look back to in the future. I think that this is much more useful to know that we could be passing on our knowledge and learning for other people in the future.
Furthermore, what was really great about the blogs and comments is the conversation with our classmates. It is not often that we get to listen to everyone's opinions and discoveries. The blogs and comments allow us to gather information from our peers and also express how we feel. In discussion it is often that people who are more aggressive gets to talk more but the blogs and comments allow an even level playing field.
The YouTube component was great in that I had to understand the material a lot more in order to speak concisely. I like that exercise taught me to be firm about my opinions so that I could express it out loud. One thing I didn't like as much was watching the YouTube videos of other people's. I thought that it was redundant from the blog materials and took a lot of time.
Overall though, I thought this was a very innovative way to share thoughts and learn!
Friday, May 2, 2014
The Value of 190G
This semester, I have thoroughly enjoyed this patent engineering class. As a business major, it was refreshing to be exposed to the different layers of the patent topic. My learning ranged from the different components that make something patentable to recent relevant patent wars to the practical application the ability to read patents.
Understanding the different components that allows a patent to be valid has enabled me to identify when my ideas can be a claimed intellectual property. The major components of obviousness, prior art, novel, and inventive step was carefully fleshed out in the class. This detailed understanding will really help me ensure that my invention and creation brings something new to the table.
Reading articles on the different patent wars that are taking place helped me understand the purpose of patents and the troubles within that governing group. I was able to recognize patent trolls and why they take place in the competitive market. The class really pushed me to have an opinion about certain cases I was wrote my narrative in the blog posts.
Through the guest speakers, I really valued the class because it made me understand how to apply patent knowledge in the real world. Learning the different occupations that involve understanding patents opened was important to me. The diversity of opportunities that understanding patents bring is truly unique.
Walking away from this class, I am more confident about how patent works and its affects on all industries. I'm excited to learn more as I now know the resources to do my research and have built a solid foundation of knowledge about it!
Understanding the different components that allows a patent to be valid has enabled me to identify when my ideas can be a claimed intellectual property. The major components of obviousness, prior art, novel, and inventive step was carefully fleshed out in the class. This detailed understanding will really help me ensure that my invention and creation brings something new to the table.
Reading articles on the different patent wars that are taking place helped me understand the purpose of patents and the troubles within that governing group. I was able to recognize patent trolls and why they take place in the competitive market. The class really pushed me to have an opinion about certain cases I was wrote my narrative in the blog posts.
Through the guest speakers, I really valued the class because it made me understand how to apply patent knowledge in the real world. Learning the different occupations that involve understanding patents opened was important to me. The diversity of opportunities that understanding patents bring is truly unique.
Walking away from this class, I am more confident about how patent works and its affects on all industries. I'm excited to learn more as I now know the resources to do my research and have built a solid foundation of knowledge about it!
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Silly Patents: Apparatus For Simulating a "High Five"
Patent US5356330 allows one of the best forms of greetings to be more effective and accurate for an individual. What the device does is assist a artificial arm and hand to perform the task of a high-five. Breaking it down to its technical components, the device is an apparatus that attaches to the upper part of the artificial arm and the artificial lower arm portion. The elbow joint allows pivoting through a secure spring. Adjustments can be made for the most effective alignment.
The purpose of the device, stated by patent owner Albert Cohen, is to allow lonely people to have something to high-five with when they are alone. This is particularly useful when watching a sports game alone, he noted.
To be honest I have never had the urge to high-five someone when I am alone. The high-five gesture is a social interaction, not something that needs to be simulated. I would not be depressed if I do not have a high-five buddy. I would be more depressed if I owned a device like this.
Silly Patents: Method And Device For Recognition of a Collision With a Pedestrian
Patent US6784792 is a technology implemented on the front of a vehicle to detect if the high impact that a car faces was caused by a pedestrian. The patent is able achieve this in two steps. The first is using sensors on the bumpers and front edge of engine hood to understand the pressure and deformations of the impact. They are compared to a database of trends that tend to happen when a human is the object that is hit. The second is to detect the velocity and acceleration of the vehicle during and after the impact. Then it is referred to database to see if it is aligned to a typical pedestrian collision. Sounds like a smart system but is it really going to make our lives any better?
At the end of the day, someone was bored. This complicated device is unnecessary. If you can't identify whether the object you have collided into is a human being, you definitely should not be driving in the first.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Mintz v. Dietz & Watson
The case of the Mintzes creating a meat casing structure that permits meat to bulge from netting is one that specifically hones in on the "hindsight" component of obviousness-identification. The court's ruling on the subject matter was aggressive compared to its more usually timid language regarding hindsight. The case went through the district court and was granted infringement ruling due to obviousness but the Federal Circuit's opinion reversed the ruling.
The opinion strongly states that the courts must avoid hindsight bias in determining obviousness. "The court needs to walk a tightrope blindfolded (to avoid hindsight)," they state. The opinion argues that three three rigid preventative tools can be utilized to prevent hindsight:
1) "Common sense" must be articulated
2) Avoid mentioning the patent itself in describing the problem the invention solves
3) Emphasizing the objective indicia of nonobviousness
To the court, articulating common sense is explicitly defining that it is obvious to try. The court also found that when articulating the problem the patent solves becomes difficult without mentioning the patent then the problem itself might be nonobvious, making the patent valid. Lastly, objective indicia is mandatory in that we must examine the patent by turning the clock back and placing it in the context that lead to the claim.
Overall these three emphasis and the more aggressive/explicit statements are a step in the right direction that protects patents from hindsight analysis. This allows the judgment of nonobviousness to be more accurate and held at a standard across the board.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/mintz-v-dietz-watson-hindsight-and-common-sense.html
The opinion strongly states that the courts must avoid hindsight bias in determining obviousness. "The court needs to walk a tightrope blindfolded (to avoid hindsight)," they state. The opinion argues that three three rigid preventative tools can be utilized to prevent hindsight:
1) "Common sense" must be articulated
2) Avoid mentioning the patent itself in describing the problem the invention solves
3) Emphasizing the objective indicia of nonobviousness
To the court, articulating common sense is explicitly defining that it is obvious to try. The court also found that when articulating the problem the patent solves becomes difficult without mentioning the patent then the problem itself might be nonobvious, making the patent valid. Lastly, objective indicia is mandatory in that we must examine the patent by turning the clock back and placing it in the context that lead to the claim.
Overall these three emphasis and the more aggressive/explicit statements are a step in the right direction that protects patents from hindsight analysis. This allows the judgment of nonobviousness to be more accurate and held at a standard across the board.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2012/05/mintz-v-dietz-watson-hindsight-and-common-sense.html
Identifying Obviousness in Design Patent
Mark Cohen, the named inventor of two patents (baseball and football) for sport jersey designs for dogs. Hunter, a retailer that had a previous professional relationship with Cohen has created jerseys that are similar to designs by Cohen. See image below:
Cohen's company, MRC, has sued Hunter for infringement. The case went through the Federal Circuit's two-step test. 1) a primary reference of something that already exists that appears basically the same. 2) other references that are related to the primary reference, with same overall visual appearance.
The references that the court chose was the Sporty K9 jersey and the V2 jersey. The court and MRC disagreed on the difference between the primary reference and the secondary reference. In the end the court ruled the Cohen's patent themselves are not valid due to prior art. MRC said that court should have leaned on revealing why a skilled artisan would take the extra step to achieve the secondary reference from the primary. Furthermore, MRC argues that the court should have looked at the commercial success and acceptance of the new product showing that they made an extra step towards innovation that has been more well received that previous products.
To me this argument is blurring the line too much. I do agree that at times a success of a product could be attributed to the fact that it is novel and innovative, going beyond the solutions that are currently available. Yet, at the same time it may not be nonobvious therefore making it not patentable. What's even more important is that success of products could be due to the big brand name of the company, the timing of the release, and the marketing tactics that was utilized. Therefore the court made the right decision and the argument made by MRC is weak.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/design-nonobviousness-jurisprudence.html
Cohen's company, MRC, has sued Hunter for infringement. The case went through the Federal Circuit's two-step test. 1) a primary reference of something that already exists that appears basically the same. 2) other references that are related to the primary reference, with same overall visual appearance.
The references that the court chose was the Sporty K9 jersey and the V2 jersey. The court and MRC disagreed on the difference between the primary reference and the secondary reference. In the end the court ruled the Cohen's patent themselves are not valid due to prior art. MRC said that court should have leaned on revealing why a skilled artisan would take the extra step to achieve the secondary reference from the primary. Furthermore, MRC argues that the court should have looked at the commercial success and acceptance of the new product showing that they made an extra step towards innovation that has been more well received that previous products.
To me this argument is blurring the line too much. I do agree that at times a success of a product could be attributed to the fact that it is novel and innovative, going beyond the solutions that are currently available. Yet, at the same time it may not be nonobvious therefore making it not patentable. What's even more important is that success of products could be due to the big brand name of the company, the timing of the release, and the marketing tactics that was utilized. Therefore the court made the right decision and the argument made by MRC is weak.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/design-nonobviousness-jurisprudence.html
Saturday, March 22, 2014
Obvious or not obvious?
That is the question.
What "obvious" has been used in the context of not being patentable if it was "[something that] would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains."
There are three key components that this would require:
1) What prior art exists in this subject matter
2) What is the difference between this new invention and the prior art
3) The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
Prior art that is assessed are usually those that answers the same problem as the new invention. With this in mind, if the new invention can be two prior art's elements combined to be all of the new material, then it is "obvious."
Things that have allowed the "obvious" factor to be waved off includes:
1) The commercial success of the product
2) What unresolved needs are met by the product
3) The failures of prior creation to solve problems that this one can
4) Unexpected results and superiority of the product
In the end unobviousness is a matter of the validity of the creation based on historical products. Although inventions are built upon developed knowledge, it is important that the invention is taking a leap, not just a side scoot. Having the above points to direct what is analyzed to identify that a creation was obvious and what are components that an unobvious product can achieve helps draw black and white lines in the gray area.
There are three key components that this would require:
1) What prior art exists in this subject matter
2) What is the difference between this new invention and the prior art
3) The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
Prior art that is assessed are usually those that answers the same problem as the new invention. With this in mind, if the new invention can be two prior art's elements combined to be all of the new material, then it is "obvious."
Things that have allowed the "obvious" factor to be waved off includes:
1) The commercial success of the product
2) What unresolved needs are met by the product
3) The failures of prior creation to solve problems that this one can
4) Unexpected results and superiority of the product
In the end unobviousness is a matter of the validity of the creation based on historical products. Although inventions are built upon developed knowledge, it is important that the invention is taking a leap, not just a side scoot. Having the above points to direct what is analyzed to identify that a creation was obvious and what are components that an unobvious product can achieve helps draw black and white lines in the gray area.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)