0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't think it was rubber stamped. The inventor and the attorney seem to be the same person. I suspect the attorney did this to test that it is possible to obtain a process patent without patenting some sort of invented mechanism. He seems to have made his point.I think the purpose here is to be able to refer back to this patent if the patent office attempts to reject "process only" patents in the future.It's actually quite clever.
As such a patent makes everyone look like clowns which would be good enough reason to reject any similar applications.
HmmmPerhaps I should contact the Patent Owner then.What recourse would I have against the patent owner if such "side to side", and "side to side swirling patterns" would cause the swingset to collapse? Or... if the swing is attached to a tree (as mentioned), would cause a person to smack into the tree (or support posts on the swing)? Or... (as also mentioned), there were two parallel swings and it caused one swing to cross the path of the other?
Clifford, good points, but I suspect it would take an army of patent examiners to implement. The USPTO is already way behind on their examinations, and I think it's getting worse.
Quote from: Geezer on 02/02/2011 03:13:51Clifford, good points, but I suspect it would take an army of patent examiners to implement. The USPTO is already way behind on their examinations, and I think it's getting worse.True.So, one could give an "unproven concept/process" patent 2 years protection.Then the patent could be amended with a "proof of implementation" within the 2 year period. Otherwise it would permanently expire and could not be patented except as a "proven" process (by anybody) under an entirely new patent application.If one tries to fraudulently patent an unproven concept for 20 year patent protection, then any patent lawsuit would require proof that whatever was patented was actually capable of being built, and was actually built at the time of the original patent application.As far as the Simon Lee Permanent Magnet Motor Patent, it should have been denied as a "concept" because it closely resembles the previous Howard Johnson patents, all of which apparently never were implemented. Any future PM Motor applications would have to include proof of production of a significant amount of energy.