Connect with us

Another patent Q

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Dirk Bruere, Mar 1, 2006.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Dirk Bruere

    Dirk Bruere Guest

    Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
    Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
    (say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

  2. Tim Wescott

    Tim Wescott Guest


    A friend of mine mentioned that he wants to patent abusive business
    practices involving frivolous patents, then go after, well, everyone.


    Tim Wescott
    Wescott Design Services

    Posting from Google? See
  3. engineer

    engineer Guest

    It sounds like there would be a term for that, in patent language, as
    common occurance.

    Let's say I invent a nail and hammer to drive it. Maybe I couldn't
    patent the nail but the hammer. Then someone conceives of driving
    screws with the hammer (not necessarily useful),
    have they created a new thing? Drywall installers, by the way, often
    set the screws halfway with a hammer.

    Imagine that a plumber takes one of these 'anti-gravity units' and with
    some fiddling develops a method of making carbonated beverages with the
    anti-gravity unit. In that case perhaps he has created a new thing?

    I have seen patents for claims similar to; Once an antigravity machine
    is invented, this is what the controls will look like. Though in that
    instance it was a child-finder control panel for a radio direction
    finding scheme.

    Having read a scant few patents, it seems like patent lawyers try to
    frame wording to include all possible applications, and attempt to
    extend by inference all possible likeness...if they went a bit further
    they would claim the application had some rights as ruler of the known
    universe... it's a bit extreme they way they word things.

    The obvious applications would be part of the patent text, whether or
    not that guarantees rights to the applications is for a patent lawyer
    to answer. I bet you could find your answers by studying up online.

    If antigravity flight were implemented in the patent requiring 6
    such units, and you found a way of doing it with three, then I would
    guess your implementation adds something new to how things are being
    done so the method sounds patentable.

    Like most people, I'm only slightly aware of what is and is not
    patentable, and would guess
    these views are reasonable approximations of what may be true.
  4. engineer

    engineer Guest

    but if you do become interested in patenting something, I would pay
    attention to establishing inventorship first, and making sure that
    you don't release any version of your invention into the public domain.
    For example, if invent a new hammer and sell your brother one for six
    dollars, you've released it and it's not patentable... however if you
    sign a deal with your brother with a lawyer present that the hammer is
    yours and he is borrowing it, that might be ok.

    Publishing details before applying for a patent may also jeopardize
    your ability to get the patent.
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    : Suppose somebody invents (say) the antigravity motor and patents it.
    : Could I then jump on board with a patent which specified its use in
    : (say) aircraft and other 'obvious' applications?

    First, I'll assume that your definition of obvious is different
    from the legal definition. The legal definition of obvious is that it is
    apparent to anyone skilled in the art. I'll assume that your definition
    of obvious means something more like that it seems like a natural
    extension of the original patent. The difference between these two is
    very murky.

    For the example that you give, the answer is most likely yes, that
    you could obtain a patent, but that it may or may not be of much use to
    you. I'll illustrate why by providing an example that one of my former
    patent attorneys uses to describe what a patent really legally means.

    A patent is a "negetive right" obtaining a patent does not give
    you the right to do anything, per se, but it takes away the right of
    others to profit from your invention. Use a pencil as an example.
    Suppose someone invented pencils and received a patent on that invention.
    Suppose you realize that you can color the lead of a pencil, and invent
    red pencils. Most likely, this new invention would not be deemed obvious
    according to the legal definition. You receive a patent for your red
    pencil. Who can sell red pencils? The answer is no one. The inventor of
    pencils holds the patent for pencils (a red pencil is a pencil) so you
    could not profit from the sale of your red pencils without infringing upon
    the original patent on pencils. Conversely, even though a red pencil is a
    pencil, it is a unique invention, and the patent holder for pencils could
    not profit from its sale without infringing. All this assumes that no
    licensing agreements exist, of course.

    So, that example is, I believe, very analogous to yours. You
    would, most likely, be able to patent an airplane with an antigravity
    generator, but your couldn't sell them without infringing upon the the
    patent for the antigravity generator (without a licensing agreement, of

    Hope that helps,

  6. Most probably, unless they have already patented that "application" for
    the device. But then you can't build it the same as them unless you
    want to pay a royalty.

    It is common practice for companies to take out a patent for the
    underlying technology and then other patents for it's manufacture and
    various applications.
    Kia Silverbrook, Australia's (and one of the worlds) most prolific
    patent producers excels at this:

    Remember, a patent is all but worthless unless you have the $$$$$$$
    (note the 7 figures minimum) to defend it. For most stuff, it doesn't
    take much to get around a patent.

    Dave :)
  7. Not in the US. Offering a product for sale, or receiving other
    "commercial gain" may start a one-year "bar" clock, but doesn't
    prevent a patent.
    Again, not in the US. It will start the bar clock though.
  8. Dirk Bruere

    Dirk Bruere Guest

    But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives?
    That might be *very* profitable.

  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    : But I could stop aircraft manufacturers adopting AG drives?
    : That might be *very* profitable.

    Right, which is why it still makes sense to patent every
    invention, even if you can't directly profit from it.

  10. Dirk Bruere

    Dirk Bruere Guest

    I was thinking more along the lines of:

    Patent X has wide applications, esp in industry B
    Industry B does not (yet) know of patent X
    I will create patent(s) Y that covers X's applications in B
    And offer patent(s) Y to one of the large players in industry B

  11. JeffM

    JeffM Guest

    engineer wrote [WITHOUT CONTEXT]:
    Let me point out to you **once again**
    that posting without *context* makes you look like a bozo.
    Not including in your post
    the name of the person to whom you are replying is just stupid.
    Are you that poor an "engineer"
    that you can't perceive a pattern and emulate it?*-*-*+click-THAT-Reply-link
  12. Interesting link.
    In "Method of producing a printed, bound document" that they've somehow
    managed to patent the timeless idea of sticking pieces of paper together to
    form a book.
    Also in Business Card" the idea of printing using infra-red responsive ink.

    If you've the cash then it seems any old brain dead idea can be Hoovered up
    and granted a patent, having full legal standing until someone objects that
    it's 'prior art'.
    But, objecting to this worthless tat, then costs someone time, effort and
    yet more money.
    The lawyers do not complain.
  13. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    Just send a copy of this thread to his boss ;-)

    ...Jim Thompson
  14. And I'm sure that someone else owns the patent on generating posts that
    "look like a bozo".

  15. This is what bothers me about the (US) patent system. Even if the
    application of X in industry B is an obvious case of its original claim,
    the USPTO will issue patent Y.

    It seems to be worse if X isn't patented (internet protocols are a good
    example of this). The protocols may be described in broad terms (the use
    of TCP/IP to establish point to point communications between two systems
    for example), there are cases of patents issued for specific
    applications (where TCP/IP replaces a dedicated serial link in some
    application, for example) where nothing else is claimed other than the
    specific use of something in the public domain for the broad
  16. Robert Baer

    Robert Baer Guest

    There are, on the patent books, a number of antigravity machines.
    Where hav you been these past 20 (more or less) years?
  17. Keith

    Keith Guest

    Nah, the prior art has that pretty well covered.
  18. Keith

    Keith Guest

    Got numbers? AFAIK, they've all been declared invlaid, along with
    anything smelling of PM. If you do find a way to do either, you're going
    to have to have some pretty solid proof to get a patent granted.

  19. What? An antigravity generator powered by a perpetual motion machine?

    Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
    prove it.
    Member of DAV #85.

    Michael A. Terrell
    Central Florida
  20. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    Wishful thinking. USPTO, unfortunately, allows just about anything through
    since (some act in the 70s or 80s or 90s?).

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day