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.

 

Source: https://www.google.com/patents/US5356330?dq=apparatus+for+high+five&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lElcU4H1IqXr2QWwu4CwBQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA

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. 

 

Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US6784792

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

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