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.
"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.
Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the park. Look at the 11-year-old boys on the swingset.
You don't need to go to the [...] Saved you some trouble. =]
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).
"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 =]
How dense can you be?
Even if that were the case, nobody like a pedant.
Pedantic. Perhaps. But it was my only point.
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.
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.
> 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.
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".
"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?
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."
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".
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.
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-....
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.