Silly Patents - Flying Bike

Claim 1:
1. The method of travel using a lifting airfoil inflated with buoyancy gas, a wheeled vehicle to be propelled by pedaling, and a propeller, that includes the steps
i) pedaling to wheel drive the vehicle to gain speed,
ii) then pedaling to propeller drive the vehicle to gain further speed,
iii) then operating the airfoil to lift the vehicle, while continuing pedaling to propeller drive the lifted air-borne vehicle, in a travel direction,
vi) said airfoil provided with tethering of an aft portion of the airfoil to an aft portion of the vehicle,
etc...

Yup, what we have been waiting for is finally here - the flying bike, aka the most ideal mode of transportation as traffic just keeps getting worse nowadays. This invention has two parts to it - first is a bicycle that seems to have a children's car seat and a fan mounted to the rear, then it is being pulled into midair by a giant inflatable "wing" that is comprised of two parallel tubes connected by a long rectangular piece. That is not even the best part, the inventor suggests mounting a rocket on the machine for when you get tired of pedaling. Well, time to buckle up. It is going to be a wild ride.

Prior Art? Nothing even comes close to how elaborate this design is. As far as I know, I don't think there exists any prior art similar to this invention.
Novel? Definitely. Flying bicycles? Who would have guessed.
Useful? An investment for those who are tired of getting stuck in traffic for hours. With this flying device, your experience on the road (in the sky) is about to be transformed and go to a whole another level. So yes, lifesaver for those who are tired of wasting years of their life being stuck in traffic.
Obvious? In my opinion, the concept is not anything too complex to come up with - it is pretty much just attaching a giant hot air balloon to a bicycle to lift it off the ground. But it is not very obvious to come up with the specifications of the design, as nothing quite like this has existed before.

Source:http://www.google.com/patents/US6688553

Silly Patent - Animal Ear Protectors

Claim 1:
A device for protecting animal ears comprising:
a pair of generally tubular protectors each of which is formed of a sheet of self-biasing material which in their free state tend to form themselves into said generally tubular protectors;
each of said protectors being longitudinally openable to allow easy insertion of one of said animal ears; and positioning means for flexibly joining one end of one protector in spaced apart relationship with one end of the other protector and for securing said device to the head of said animal such that the longitudinal axis of each protector and a portion of each ear of said animal, are held generally horizontally and approximately perpendicularly to the head of said animal whereby the ends of said animal ears are separated by a distance greater than the width of the head of said animal.

Essentially, this is a hair tie for dogs.. it is a pair of protectors made out of highly morphable material that is designed for dogs' ears so that when dogs put their heads into their eating bowls, the protectors are able to pull the hair back and their ears can stay nice and free of food. This product is especially recommended for owners of long-haired breeds such as poodles, for which the feeding process can get slightly messy and sticky. But ouch, it looks quite painful to have them on..

Prior art? Perhaps hair ties for humans? Though it is a little bit of a stretch since the material and shape used in normal hair ties are pretty different from this one.
Novel? Sure. Don't think I have ever come across such a thing for pets.
Useful? Could come in hand for pet owners who find dogs getting their ears dirty from eating a problem - it does seem like it can do a good job of keeping the ears immaculate after a meal. Otherwise, it is quite useless.
Obvious? I would say it is not that obvious to think of an invention like this, except maybe for dog owners who have actually experienced this problem. I guess for those who have dealt with this problem before, it shouldn't be too difficult to think of this solution, though it is rather strange to use a concept originally designed for humans on pets.

Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US4233942

Silly Patents - Santa Claus Detector (Extra Credit)

Claim 1:
A children's novelty device for detecting when an entity enters a dwelling comprising:
a decorative Christmas stocking having a top portion, a heel portion and a toe portion, said toe portion including an enclosure therein;
an electrical control circuit;
a light source operatively coupled to said control circuit;
a power source operatively coupled to said control circuit for providing power to said light source, said power source being disposed in said toe portion enclosure;
switch means operatively coupled to said control circuit for controlling the power provided by said power source to said light source; and
a flexible pull cord, said pull cord being connected to said switch means for actuating said switch means when a force is exerted on said pull cord,
whereby, when said pull cord is tugged, said light source is turned on.

If you are like me, who still refuses to believe that Santa isn't real, well, I think I have found something that could work in our defense. This invention right here is a stocking with a built-in light source that shoots out a light beam whenever Santa fills it up with presents/the hoop attached to the toe is pulled (shown in picture). Essentially, it is able to prove Santa's existence and great for establishing a healthy and interactive relationship between Santa and his believers. So next time someone tells you they don't believe in Santa, you know what to get them for Christmas.

Prior Art? Most likely nothing similar. Maybe a stocking with a built-in power source that lights up in the dark when being pulled/touched, if there is such a thing?
Novel? I have not really seen anything like this so will have to give the inventor credits for coming up with this.
Useful? Great for proving that Santa is real on top of all the gifts he brings, and personally, I would buy this for my kids.
Obvious? Well, the concept of using a light source to indicate the arrival of someone/someone when a detector is set off (pulling the hoop in this case) is nothing new. Many things respond to external triggers by lighting up, such as sound reactive lights or touch-sensitive lamps. But using a light source on a stocking for the sole purpose of detecting Santa is rather quite non-obvious in my opinion.

Source: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05523741__

Silly Patents - Toe Puppet (Extra Credit)

Claim 1:
A puppet adapted to be mounted on a human digit for providing animated motion of a figurine responsive to movement of the human digit, the puppet comprising: a hollow, elastic cap having an interior wall defining an axially-extending cavity for snugly receiving said human digit; and a resilient neck having a proximal end connected to said cap and a distal end secured to said figurine, said neck extending along an axis transverse to the cavity axis wherein the neck is tapered so as to decrease in transverse dimension in a direction from said proximal end toward said distal end, and wherein said figurine is mounted to the distal end of said neck and is spaced from said cap, said neck and said figurine being oscillatable to and fro in response to movement of said human digit.

So...if you ever think your toes are looking boring and feel the need to accessorize them a bit, be sure to get your hands on these toe puppets! What can I say, puppets make great accessories for anywhere on the body. This patent essentially allows you to wear a puppet figure on your toe so you can maneuver it in whichever way and whatever motion you may desire. It is almost like playing with puppets on your fingers, a great way to channel your creativity and inner child regardless.

Prior Art? Possibly puppets made for hands or fingers.
Novel? Sure, so far I haven't seen anything like this being sold in store or online, tho I wouldn't say this combination of a puppet toy and a body part is anything new.
Useful? It would be good for entertainment purposes, maybe even appropriate for talent shows. It is also a good way to exercise your toes I assume.
Obvious? I could argue that it can be rather obvious to switch something originally made for hands/fingers to another body part such as one's toes.

Source: http://www.delphion.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/US05830035__?OUT_FORMAT=pdf&MODE=fstv

Obvious to Try - Appropriate vs Misuse

In my previous post, I went over the criteria an invention needs to meet in order to apply the obvious to use doctrine as well as how to properly apply the method to determine an invention's obviousness. In this post, I will discuss one correct use of the obvious to try argument and one misuse.

Appropriate use:
The case of Perfect Web Technologies vs InfoUSA provides an example in which the Federal Circuit held that a claimed method for managing bulk e-mail distribution was obvious on the basis of an obvious to try argument. Perfect Web sued InfoUSA for infringing on its patent for managing bulk email distribution. The patent consisted of steps (A) through (D) that described the sequence of the email distribution process, of which steps (A) through (C) came from prior art. The obvious to try doctrine thus becomes valid in this case since the prior art does not clearly indicate the possibility of the invention and the addition of step (D) can be further analyzed with the doctrine.

The Federal Circuit Court ruled that the patent was invalid because step (D) was considered obvious to try after experts identified a total of 3 potential solutions to the problem the patent was intended to solve. Hence, step (D) was considered obvious to try given the invention was created among a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, each with likelihood of success. Overall, the court appropriately applied the obvious to try doctrine to this case by first recognizing its applicability through the prior art and identifying the finite number of solutions to determine its obviousness.

Misuse:
An example of a misuse of the obvious to try doctrine was the Supreme Court decision in KSR vs Teleflex. The doctrine was irrelevant in KSR because there was no uncertainty regarding whether attachment of a sensor to a support member of a pedal would remain in a fixed position.

Ultimately, the holding of obviousness in KSR was based on a traditional § 103 analysis, i.e., motivation to solve a problem in combination with the presence of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that are within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill”. Therefore, "mention of the obvious to try doctrine in KSR constituted nothing more than a harmless distraction".

Sources:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html
http://www.hoffmanbaron.com/releases/HB%20Article%20Reprint_fnl.pdf

Obvious to Try - How it Works

The obvious to try doctrine can be used to determine to the obviousness of an invention, i.e. if the attempt to create the invention is obvious, then the invention is unpatentable. However, using this method is a two step process. First, we need to determine whether the doctrine is applicable to the invention. When is it appropriate to apply it? When can we not apply it? Once we figure out that the doctrine is relevant to the invention, how do we go about determining obviousness from there?

When is the doctrine applicable?
The nature of the prior art for an invention dictates the relevance of the obvious to try doctrine. When the prior art suggests that a claimed invention is possible, but expresses at least some uncertainty regarding whether the invention can be made or will function as expected, then the obvious to try doctrine is relevant to that particular case.

Essentially, this criterion sets up the framework for using obvious to try. If the prior art does not clearly state how the invention could be created/used, then the invention could be looked into further with the obvious to try doctrine to determine its obviousness.

When is the doctrine irrelevant?
If the prior art leaves little or no doubt that the claimed invention can be made and will operate to achieve its stated purpose, then the obvious to try doctrine is not relevant. Under such circumstances, one should analyze the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention in the traditional sense under §103.

Simply put, if the prior art mentions that the claimed invention is 100% possible to create and has a clear purpose, then to determine to obviousness of the invention, one should not use the obvious to try doctrine but instead analyze it with §103. And that makes sense -- if a prior art fully describes the claimed invention, then the attempt to create the invention is longer an issue of obviousness, as the invention is a given fact. Instead, it is more important to look at how the claimed invention differs from the prior art through §103.

When the doctrine is relevant, how do we determine if the invention that was obvious to try is still nevertheless non-obvious?
As we discussed in class, if there exists a need or market pressure to solve the problem with only a finite number of foreseeable solutions to a person of ordinary skills in the art, then the invention designed for targeting the problem is also obvious. On top of that, the degree to which success is unexpected and unpredictable for the invention also plays into its obviousness. Is there is a reasonable expectation of success? If yes, then the invention is obvious. If not, the invention is non-obvious.

When and how to use obvious to try in determining obviousness can be tricky, therefore I will go over some good and bad applications of this doctrine in several example court cases in the next post to hopefully establish a better sense of how it works.

Sources:
http://www.hoffmanbaron.com/releases/HB%20Article%20Reprint_fnl.pdf