Patent US6368227 - Method of swinging on a swing | Hacker News Reader

Patent US6368227 - Method of swinging on a swing

google.co.uk

229 pointsgojko111 comments

To be fair, the patent was filed by a five year old whose patent-attorney father was trying to educate on how the patent process works. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-of... Perhaps he taught his son even more than he expected.

It's also expired due to nonpayment of fees.

Confirmed; the US Patent Office says "Patent Expired Due to NonPayment of Maintenance Fees Under 37 CFR 1.362".

Good! I can finally swing from side to side again.

And as scott_meade points out, all the claims were canceled.

When I explained the patent system to my young child, he came up with an invention for a marshmallow roaster that roasts from the inside. I was tempted to go through the steps of filing a patent for him so we could both learn from the process, but the time effort wasn't worth it.

No, we have no working prototype for this world-changing device.

Thank you - this article was a key piece of the puzzle and should certainly temper any severe rage over patent trolling on swings.

This is disgusting. It's disgusting that just the other day I saw kids probably no older than 6 violating this very patent in a public playground of all places. Six year olds violating patents, what has society become? They were smiling and giggling with their friends swinging on the swingsets, hopefully the criminals responsible for violating this patent are dealt with to the full extent of the law.

In all seriousness though, it's patents like this that are the reason the patent system is as broken and messed up as it is. You can patent anything if you use enough convuluted words in a couple of paragraphs it would seem.

Did you attempt to assertain if they had or had not in fact liscensed this patent? Let's not make assumptions after all.

This patent is for side-to-side swinging. IANAL, but if they were doing the traditional forward-backward swinging they should be okay.

It will however require the services of a competent patent attorney at a cost of around $1mm and approximately 3 years in a court in Eastern Texas to prove that they are in fact "okay".

Don't worry, we can start out by getting a judge to enjoin the probable infringement. We'll make sure no kids are allowed to attend elementary school during those 3 years.

This patent is also for tree branches. With chains.

Regular metal frames in playgrounds are exempted and so too are tree branches with ropes.

Wondeful! Lots of room for follow-on patents! (said the patent lawyer)

Before pulling the end of world pickets from the attic, just have a look at the last page of the patent.

None of the claims are granted.

If anything, this shows the level of crap the patent examiners have to deal with everyday.

The patent was granted in 2002, then claims revoked in 2003 after bad press. So it's still fairly damning on the system.

Exactly. The very fact it was approved in the first place proves the system is massively flawed. If it took bad press for it to be revoked, that just makes the patent system look even worse.

Those monsters. Have they no sense of the society they are spitting on.

As you said though, this really is the perfect example of what's wrong with the patent system. There needs to be an overhaul of what can be patented and how to go about it, but the companies with the influence to do so have no real incentive to do so, as most of them own the patents that they need.

It's a tongue-in-cheek troll, and a beautiful one at that. Someone filed this on behalf of his/her son. Check out the last lines of the application, with emphasis added:

-- snip --

Lastly, it should be noted that because pulling alternately on one chain and then the other resembles in some measure the movements one would use to swing from vines in a dense jungle forest, the swinging method of the present invention may be referred to by the present inventor and his sister as "Tarzan" swinging. The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required.

Licenses are available from the inventor upon request.

-- end snip --

edit: formatting

There is nothing patented in this patent. Note that "Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 are cancelled". That's all of the claims.

Wait, where does it say that?

Last page.

Ah, I didn't realize it'd gone into reexam. That seems like a silly waste of money.

I rather like this one. Though to be fair, it was probably correct to award it: it's definitely inventive, and I doubt there is prior art.

http://www.google.com/patents/US3216423

I don't know a better word to describe that except to say it is disturbing.

It's a mock patent.

I worked for a company whose on-staff lawyer was friends with the person who authored this patent. He too was (is?) a lawyer and he filed this application to demonstrate how ridiculous the patent legislation was. It was never meant to be a serious patent.

I cannot help but think this patent and others like it would be good test cases for a summary reversal mechanism. I would use them as follows:

1) Create a policy whereby a patent can be identified as being 'issued in error' (to be clear the case is made that at the time of filing the patent basis was already unpatentable)

2) Provide a framework for describing the unpatentability and the evidence standards for elements in the framework (so you have to show it was obvious for example and have other indpendent inventions at a similar time, or prior art, etc)

3) Establish what rights the patent holder has in defending against this allocation (what rules of evidence are needed, what standard does that evidence need to meet)

4) Establish an appeal process, if any, and its rules.

5) Establish a way of introducing these disallowed patents as evidence of unpatentability in current office actions.

Then start with patents like this one and run them through that process.

Part of the problem here is that the challenge process is really broken and it needs to be fixed in order to balance out the inevitable human failings on the approval process.

What I want to know is why does is this patent referenced by a Microsoft patent that is completely unrelated?

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8181265

Does Microsoft think the patent system is a joke?

Could this have been a joke by the patent examiner who handled the document?

If you look very closely at this Microsoft patent document (http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US8181265?printsec=abstract#...), on page 2, you'll see that the reference to the swing patent has an asterisk next to it.

The document says, specifically, on page 2: … 6,368,227 B1* 4/2002 Olson…472/118 … * cited by examiner

A handful of other the "cited by examiner" references are to apparently useful references (other patents that cover antipiracy stuff). Dunno why the examiner would add the swing patent unless perhaps they thought their system was a joke? Or am I misreading what the asterisk means? (The examiner also cited the "method of exercising a cat" patent in this document.)

I love the fact that this same MS patent also references "Method of exercising a cat" http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036.

Also seems to reference 'Method of exercising a cat', http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US5443036

I went through both Samsung and MSFT patents that 'refer' to this patents. This patent, in both cases, is cited by the examiner. So, my idea behind that is the examiner either didn't like his job or had a good sense of humor about whole patent process!

Or it was a form of protest. Those patents are now tied to absurdist humor forever.

Passive-aggressive gesture by the engineers after being strong-armed into working through the application?

Perhaps human error with the USPTO data entry system. Or, as others have said, as a joke.

When you think about it, patent examiners make industrial policy that affects the entire United States for up to 20 years. To be fair, the USPTO takes that responsibility pretty seriously. Still, examiners are human --- and a lot of them aren't experienced enough to have signature authority: their actions must be signed by their supervisors, who have to oversee multiple junior examiners. In many fields, the examining corps is pretty buried by the workload and doesn't have the time or other resources they'd like to have. [EDIT: In response to 'dkhenry, I agree, there's no excuse for the patent being discussed here.]

This examiner burden is exacerbated by three things:

First, patent examiners' performance is graded in part on the basis of a "count system," which provides at least some incentive for examiners to allow at least some claims [1].

Second, the statute mandates that a patent be issued unless the examiner can demonstrate that the application is not patentable.

Third, there's no requirement that a patent applicant conduct any kind of patentability search. An applicant and his patent attorney must disclose any "material" prior art of which they're aware, but the applicant need not do any kind of literature search. [EDIT: When you apply for a patent, you pay filing fees in part to help cover some of the cost of having a patent examiner do a search.]

Just imagine if a PhD candidate wasn't required to do a literature survey as part of her dissertation work, but instead her advisor and thesis committee were required to approve her degree unless they and their TAs could affirmatively demonstrate that her research was insufficiently novel. That's not unlike the way it works in the patent system. And now think of how much more national impact can result from the issuance of a patent compared to the issuance of a PhD degree.

Inventors and patent attorneys tend to fiercely oppose any proposal that patent applicants be required to conduct prior-art searches, on grounds that it would increase the cost of a patent application. But if an inventor wants a national industrial policy to be made in his favor that will last for as much as 20 years, it doesn't seem per se unreasonable for society to require him to do some due diligence first.

(Of course, as long as the law is what it is, patent applicants, including my own clients, will quite properly abide by the law as it is and not as some might think it ought to be.)

Richard Stallman once asserted, in testimony at the USPTO [2], that:

--snip--

Some years ago a professor I know patented Kirchoff's current law, which says that the electric currents flowing into a junction equal the currents flowing out. He did this to confirm, privately, his suspicion that the PTO could not handle the field of electronics. He never tried to enforce the patent which has since expired. I will disclose his name if you give assurances that he and his lawyer will not get in trouble for this.

Kirchoff's laws were formulated in 1845. If the PTO couldn't understand electricity after a century, how can we expect it to understand software in another decade or two.

(applause)

--snip--

[1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/usptos-new-examiner-cou...

[2] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/hearings/software/sanjo...

If you were commenting on a patent on a complex technical subject then fine, this is on swinging. There is nothing other then gross negligence that can explain why this was approved.

Claim 1 states:

"A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch."

Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it?

Obviously, common sense should have played a huge part. But common sense by it self is not patent law. You still need evidence to support your common sense.

dctoedt is right. Humans make mistake.

You don't need prior art.

> One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.

Uh, yes, you need prior art.

How do you think obviousness is determined?

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html

As he said, you need proof, not just a statement "oh well everyone knew that".

Am I misreading? It says:

"However, this did not preclude examiners from employing common sense. More recently [...], we explained that that use of common sense does not require a “specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,” only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations."

Edit: Also, what about bad ideas? Just because someone didn't demonstrate a specific method doesn't mean its non-obvious. Suppose I decided to pop an alert box on end-of-scroll for touch devices. It's a stupid idea. Do we want to grant a patent to someone just because no one demo'd such a bad idea?

That part is referring to motivation to combine references, or extend an existing reference.

The Federal Circuit precedent on the issue used to be that you needed an explicit suggestion or motivation (in prior art) to combine two references or do further work, in order for that combination to be prior art, which was fairly ridiculous, but it was the law. See, for example, In Re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 ( http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/277/277.F3d.1338.00...). Some choice quotes (i'm too lazy to pull out the cites the opinion itself is making):

  "The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be    
  thorough and searching." Id. It must be based on objective   
  evidence of record. This precedent has been reinforced in 
  myriad decisions, and cannot be dispensed with.

...

  "Our case law makes clear that the best defense against the 
  subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based 
  obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the 
  requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to
  combine prior art references."

There is also a still open question of the skill level of a person with ordinary skill in a given art and "obvious to try".

As for bad ideas, nothing in the law prevents you patenting useless or non-valuable things. We do in fact, grant plenty of patents on useless or non-valuable things.

As for whether we should, I personally don't believe we should, but the argument goes that "plenty of things that people thought were useless or bad ideas at the time turned out to be quite commercially valuable".

The Federal Circuit's TSM (teaching, suggestion, or motivation) requirement for showing non-obviousness was overruled by the Supreme Court in its 2007 KSR v. Teleflex opinion, available at http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5415246430487863...

KSR stressed the need for common sense in obviousness analysis; it also mentioned that "obvious to try" can be considered.

An excellent summary of the case by a young and well-regarded patent law professor is at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/ksr_v_teleflex_.html.

Yes, i'm quite aware (which is why i said "used to be"), I was simply explaining the quote in the MPEP that was cited by the parent, which was part of a discussion of what the law of obviousness used to be.

> As for bad ideas, nothing in the law prevents you patenting useless or non-valuable things.

Actually, section 101 of the patent statute expressly states that an invention must be useful in order to be patented. "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." (Emphasis added.)

There have been court cases in which patents were invalidated because their claimed subject matter had no discernible utility. See, e.g., the Janssen case: A patent claimed the use of a particular chemical formulation to treat Alzheimer's, but apparently there was zero evidence that the treatment actually had any effect. The case is summarized at http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2010/12/07/solving-utility-....

Yes, useless was a bad choice of words here. I should have said "stupid".

you could provide random videos of children playing randomly with their swings. At numerous points kids do get that trick to swing easily. I don't think it's hard at all.

> Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it?

Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the park. Look at the 11-year-old boys on the swingset.

Even ignoring the tree branch I'd be surprised if you found a single one of those 11-year-old boys employing the method described within.

Can I be considered prior art? Because I did that very thing as a kid over twenty years ago. In fact, I would say the method in question was common knowledge on the playground. Parents didn't like it because if the kid next to you did it then you stood the chance of bumping into each other unless you could get a matching rhythm going.

I also "discovered" that if you use your feet to twist the ropes around each other as you sit in the swing you eventually can cause a spinning motion in the opposite direction by lifting your feet from ground. Is there a patent for that? Did I miss my chance?

EDIT: oh wait, it seems the patent was either not granted or lapsed due to non-payment. I guess I don't have precedent for my twisting swing patent idea after all. Feel free to try it with my blessing.

> Can I be considered prior art?

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: yes, but only if the one single examiner handling this patent at the time had known of you, known how to contact you, and been able to obtain any information from you (and mind you, he/she likely could not have told you why he/she wanted the information).

The other problem is that while you did this over twenty years ago along with the others on the playground, where did any one of you publish anything describing your alternate swing method? Because to make a rejection stick, the patent examiner has to find some publication by you or one of your playground mates from twenty years ago disclosing to the public your new swinging method. This is because the position of the courts is that an applicant deserves a patent __unless__ the us patent office can prove otherwise (and "prove" pretty much means "prove to the level of a civil trial in court").

If the system were reversed, i.e. that applicant did not deserve a patent unless they (the applicant) could prove it was sufficiently new to deserve a patent, there would be far less of these "swinging on a swing" type patents.

I did this all the time as a kid. If my family had owned a video camera, I'd definitely have prior art on tape.

When you are forced to spend 30+ minutes/day 120+days/year over the course of 8+years around a set of limited devices you tend to think of a lot of interesting ways to use them because otherwise it can get boring fast.

I got the point from others that some are apparently more creative on swings than I but I must ask who is so forced?

I wasn't forced to play with a swing, but there were a limited number of objects and we had to spend the time in the playground area during recess/lunch and couldn't leave school grounds. This was a suburban public elementary school in San Jose about 20 years ago.

Eww. I suddenly appreciate my elementary school so much more.

On a tree branch? Never seen one of those at a park.

http://www.shirleyreade.com/images/ArtGallery/Children/TheTi...

Looks like a backyard, not a park.

Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the [...]

You don't need to go to the [...] Saved you some trouble. =]

My POINT was that parks don't have swings on branches. At least no park I've ever seen.

Even you apparently had to find a random picture on the internet. They must be sooo easy to find by going outside.

Edit: I think you are mistaking me for the parent comment-er. Notice I'm not him/her and my argument was only about not finding swings on branches at PARKS (because that's who I responded to).

Claim 1 states:
"A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch."

Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it?

I'm not sure what it matters if said invention is in one of various settings with repsect to prior art. Ultimately, the fact that it took 1/10 of a second to find an example of experimenters on a substantially similar context in a backyard makes this whole thing seem rather trivial. The variation of seat type or suspension technology is trivial, as are the N possible ways of generating momentum (a/k/a swinging).

BTW that's a hell of a view for backyard =]

Notice I didn't respond to that guy, I responded to the guy saying you'd find prior art at a park. I wasn't denying prior art existed, just NOT AT A PARK.

How dense can you be?

You honestly think there are no parks with swings hung from trees?

Even if that were the case, nobody like a pedant.

The pedantic difference between hanging a swing from a tree branch or from a metal frame does in fact play a major role in determining whether the patent would apply or not.

...What? He was saying that there are no swings hanging from branches in parks... He isn't saying prior art doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist in parks. It is a clearly pointless and erroneous pedantic tangent. What are you on about now?

I wasn't even saying there isn't a park with swings hung from trees. As a guy with a young kid, I see a lot of parks. In two entirely different states. Saying "walk down the street and you'll see one" is false in both states. I've never seen a single one.

Pedantic. Perhaps. But it was my only point.

How 'bout gross cowardice?

I accept the factual points of folks defending the patent examiners based on the patent system having more or less evolved-away both prior art and common-sense defenses based on the principle that neither constitute airtight proofs. Suppose everyone can more or less do X and more or less describe X. That should make X unpatentable but this criteria has goes from decisive to least-important-if-not-irrelevant when the system goes to the point of demanding absolute proof of the condition.

Yes, but this state of affairs is a defense of the patent examiners and the patent office only the sense of saying "hey, they're just covering their asses". Well, that's the it's-OK-to-be-a-despicable-cowardly-dog approach.

I can accept this as an explanation of the situation. I can't accept it if it phrased a defense.

There are no valid claims on this disclosure, see last page. The description is just a narrative: even though they can be used as evidence of prior art for future patents, they are not part of the IP given to the applicant.

The patent it self is so simple and basic, that mind as well be someone teaching exercise into the patents world.

What it is making me "uncomfortable" is that patents from Microsoft (Secure machine counting) and Samsung (transistor substrate) refer to them...

No they don't. In both cases, this patent is cited by the examiner, who probably had good sense of humor.

If a patent examiner cited the swinging patent in an application involving actual technology, I would guess the examiner might have intended the citation as a red flag, a signal to future judges and juries that the examiner regarded the application as bogus but couldn't prove it.

I find it hilarious there is even a debate in these threads about this. I think it's pretty well established the patent system is entirely screwed. Alas very rich people have a good reason to keep it screwed. To stay rich.

The only thing that suffers is inovation. There is also a trending story floating around lately were some one posted a bogas story created by SciGen to a spammy security magazine. Look at the person who filed these patents... TL;DR just skim them... http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&#...

One would almost think he used the equivalent type script but for patents. HA!

Look at the last page. The claims are "cancelled". I'm guessing that makes the patent invalid.

Apparently the burrito (or is it a canoli?) was invented 12 years ago: http://www.google.com/patents?id=YlkIAAAAEBAJ&printsec=a...

Don't worry. The EU recently standardized Pizza Napoletana[1]. Among some of the regulations are:

* The flour used has to have a deformation energy between 220W and 380W

* The dough has a pH-value of 5.87 and a density of 0.79g/cm³

* The salt has to be applied with a spiral motion on top of the tomatoes

* The olive oil has to be applied with a spiral motion as well, totalling at 4-5g of oil with an allowed error of 20%

* The baking time is 60-90 seconds. The dough has to reach 60-65°C

That's not just a patent. This is a legal ordinance. This is law. This is taxpayers money at work!

EDIT: edit for formatting and source

[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=0J:L:2... (German)

I'm not sure what your point is. TSGs exist and are useful, as are PDOs etc.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_tr...)

(http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2...) (English).

So? It's a truth in advertising legislation. It's why you can't buy a piece of toast in a box labelled Pizza Napoletana, or (for HN) a Galaxy SIII in a gox labelled "iPhone 5"

Are we allowed to discuss this without violating Patent number: 6715762

http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6715762

Maybe this is a way to avoid parking tickets, who knows, anything is viable with the right lawyer these days.

IIRC this was a joke patent that they put forward just to see what they could get away with.

Or maybe not so much a joke as an absurdity used to prove a point? I actually wish there were more patents like this as it would lead to tighter examination.

I also don't think it's an accident that the inventor and filing attorney have the same last name. It's hard to justify the cost of doing this unless you can get the lawyer for free. It's not the filing fees that are expensive so much as the rest of the process.

how about this one as well http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6004596

Have you seen this patent on 'refreshing a bread product by heating ...':

http://www.google.com/patents/US6080436?hl=en

To be fair, that patent claims:

  b) setting the temperature of the heating elements 
  between 2500 F. and 4500 F

So it is using light bulbs to heat the bread. Which is somewhat imaginative compared to using an oven.

I spent a lot of the day yesterday doing patent and publication searches and I've come to the conclusion that patents are written both by and for retarded monkeys.

Even better: http://www.google.com/patents/US4022227

So let me ask this totally noob question. Is this where one could claim "prior art" or does that no apply in this case?

I looked at costs of filing a patent awhile back. Seems relatively cheap to file, if you do as much work yourself as possible, however the maintenance fees they require you to pay at 3.5 yrs, 7.5 yrs, and 11.5 yrs, to keep the patent in effect, get progressively steeper.

I wonder if this guy has paid any of the maintenance fees?

I actually never realised that a swing could be used like this. I always just went forwards and backwards.

and here's another one. Wheel patented (in Australia) as a "circular transportation facilitation device" http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-...

The Australian Innovation Patent isn't really a patent. When an application is filed a formalities check is completed, but no prior art search is conducted. Also, the inventor and assignee of an AIP can't litigate. If one wanted to, the Australian Patent Office would need to examine and issue an allowance as a standard patent.

From the perspective of the US patent system, the AIP is more like a provisional patent application than anything else.

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/patents/types...

If I had the money to throw away for the application fee I was going to patent "A Digital Method for Removal of Sinus Mucal Buildup"

If anyone fancies suing the Whitehouse to make a point, here's a picture of what appears to be a relevant violation:

https://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_image_pages/0519-090...

No. This patent was for sideways swinging.

I think the original swing patent is pretty interesting. It is different from just a piece of wood held by two ropes / chains. Heck, there seems to be a lot of different types of swings that got patent protection. Must of been a competitive field.

The real question is why do Primary Examiner: Kien T. Nguyen and Attorney: Peter Lowell Olson

Still have jobs at the patent office ( if they do ). We should be able to demand the termination of public servants who do not do their jobs.

Inventor: Steven Olson

Attorney: Peter Lowell Olson

Of note is the Microsoft patent (US8181265) that cites it for "Secure machine counting"

http://www.google.com/patents/US8181265

I assume as joke or hidden egg.

in one of the water cooler rooms in the canadian patent office, we have a wall of shame for patents like this. I remember one patent for a stick, and another for patenting the patent process.

I'm waiting for the self-referential patent "A method to defend against patent lawsuits" that patents patenting the act of filing patent lawsuits in order to defend against patent lawsuits.

More patents should reference Underdog:

"Young children often need help to climb onto a swing and may need a push (sometimes even an "underdog" push) to begin swinging."

Startup idea: crowd sourced prior art search?

I remember performing this swinging procedure as a child. Surely there is some video evidence of someone doing it somewhere.

I'm going to patent See-Saw balancing on a tree stem. That's just the beginning, I'm headed to Children's Park to get more ideas now...

A great collection of patents - http://patently-useless.tumblr.com/

Has nobody noticed there is no issue date? You can file any patent you want, but if it's actually issued, that's another problem.

Better prepare yourself, on the left hand side there is in-fact an issue date, "Issue date: 9 Apr 2002" which is beneath the filing date "Filing date: 17 Nov 2000"

Upon re-examination, all the claims for this patent were cancelled (see the last page.)

This gives me hope that my patent for "Going to the Bathroom" is going to be approved!

It's been a while since Albert Einstein worked in the patent office, eh?

I wish I was a troll with a law degree.

This just made my day!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com