CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
14,662
edits
Patent and Trademark Office: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Wall Street Journal"
m (MrT moved page United States Patent and Trademark Office to Patent and Trademark Office) |
m (Text replacement - "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Wall Street Journal") |
||
| Line 475: | Line 475: | ||
<!--This section needs to demonstrate controversy over the patents described herein, rather than just listing some patents that sound silly. So far, the only one here that actually discusses any controversy is the one about the space vehicle. --> | <!--This section needs to demonstrate controversy over the patents described herein, rather than just listing some patents that sound silly. So far, the only one here that actually discusses any controversy is the one about the space vehicle. --> | ||
*{{US patent|5,443,036}}, "Method of exercising a cat", covers having a cat chase the beam from a [[laser pointer]]. The patent has been criticized as being obvious.<ref name="NYTimes2004_10_21">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/business/21scene.html|author=Hal H. Varian|title=Patent Protection Gone Awry|date=October 21, 2004|work=The New York Times|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528062022/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/business/21scene.html|archive-date=May 28, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55831|title=Stop the Patent Process Madness|date=October 21, 2002|author=Lauren Weinstein|author-link=Lauren Weinstein (activist)|work=[[Wired News]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140119134737/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55831|archive-date=January 19, 2014}}</ref> | *{{US patent|5,443,036}}, "Method of exercising a cat", covers having a cat chase the beam from a [[laser pointer]]. The patent has been criticized as being obvious.<ref name="NYTimes2004_10_21">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/business/21scene.html|author=Hal H. Varian|title=Patent Protection Gone Awry|date=October 21, 2004|work=The New York Times|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150528062022/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/21/business/21scene.html|archive-date=May 28, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55831|title=Stop the Patent Process Madness|date=October 21, 2002|author=Lauren Weinstein|author-link=Lauren Weinstein (activist)|work=[[Wired News]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140119134737/http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55831|archive-date=January 19, 2014}}</ref> | ||
*{{US patent|6,004,596}}, "[[Sealed crustless sandwich]]", issued in 1999, covers the design of a sandwich with crimped edges.<ref name="NYTimes2004_10_21"/><ref>{{cite news|author=Sara Schaefer Muñoz|date=April 5, 2005|work= | *{{US patent|6,004,596}}, "[[Sealed crustless sandwich]]", issued in 1999, covers the design of a sandwich with crimped edges.<ref name="NYTimes2004_10_21"/><ref>{{cite news|author=Sara Schaefer Muñoz|date=April 5, 2005|work=The Wall Street Journal|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111266108673297874|title=Patent No. 6,004,596: Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170710051120/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111266108673297874|archive-date=July 10, 2017}}</ref> All claims of the patent were canceled by the PTO upon reexamination.<ref>Reexamination certificate no. US 6,004,596 C1, September 25, 2007, retrieved from USPTO [http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114020637/http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair |date=January 14, 2009 }}, December 1, 2008 (request PAIR entry for Reexamination Control Number 90/005949 as "Application Number").</ref> | ||
*{{US patent|6,025,810}}, "Hyper-light-speed antenna", an antenna that sends signals faster than the [[speed of light]].<ref name="ross"/> According to the description in the patent, "The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light."<ref>{{US patent|6,025,810}}, col. 1, lines 30–34.</ref> | *{{US patent|6,025,810}}, "Hyper-light-speed antenna", an antenna that sends signals faster than the [[speed of light]].<ref name="ross"/> According to the description in the patent, "The present invention takes a transmission of energy, and instead of sending it through normal time and space, it pokes a small hole into another dimension, thus, sending the energy through a place which allows transmission of energy to exceed the speed of light."<ref>{{US patent|6,025,810}}, col. 1, lines 30–34.</ref> | ||
*{{US patent|6,368,227}}, "Method of swinging on a swing", issued April 9, 2002,<ref name="NewScientist2002_04_17">{{cite web|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html|publisher=[[New Scientist]]|date=April 17, 2002|author=Jeff Hecht|title=Boy takes swing at US patents|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514000604/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html|archive-date=May 14, 2011}}</ref><ref name="NYTimes2002_05_13">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-office-faces-huge-backlogs-extremely-technical-inventions-absurd.html|work=The New York Times|title=Patents; The Patent Office faces huge backlogs, extremely technical inventions, and absurd ones.|author=Teresa Riordan|date=May 13, 2002|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170316153058/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-office-faces-huge-backlogs-extremely-technical-inventions-absurd.html|archive-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> was granted to a seven-year-old boy, whose father, a patent attorney, wanted to demonstrate how the patent system worked to his son who was five years old at the time of the application. The PTO initially rejected it due to prior art, but eventually issued the patent.<ref name="NewScientist2002_04_17"/> Upon reexamination all claims of the patent were canceled by the PTO.<ref>Reexamination certificate no. US 6,368,227 C1, July 1, 2003, retrieved from USPTO [http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114020637/http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair |date=January 14, 2009 }}, August 22, 2008</ref> | *{{US patent|6,368,227}}, "Method of swinging on a swing", issued April 9, 2002,<ref name="NewScientist2002_04_17">{{cite web|url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html|publisher=[[New Scientist]]|date=April 17, 2002|author=Jeff Hecht|title=Boy takes swing at US patents|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110514000604/http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents.html|archive-date=May 14, 2011}}</ref><ref name="NYTimes2002_05_13">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-office-faces-huge-backlogs-extremely-technical-inventions-absurd.html|work=The New York Times|title=Patents; The Patent Office faces huge backlogs, extremely technical inventions, and absurd ones.|author=Teresa Riordan|date=May 13, 2002|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170316153058/http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/13/business/patents-patent-office-faces-huge-backlogs-extremely-technical-inventions-absurd.html|archive-date=March 16, 2017}}</ref> was granted to a seven-year-old boy, whose father, a patent attorney, wanted to demonstrate how the patent system worked to his son who was five years old at the time of the application. The PTO initially rejected it due to prior art, but eventually issued the patent.<ref name="NewScientist2002_04_17"/> Upon reexamination all claims of the patent were canceled by the PTO.<ref>Reexamination certificate no. US 6,368,227 C1, July 1, 2003, retrieved from USPTO [http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR)] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090114020637/http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair |date=January 14, 2009 }}, August 22, 2008</ref> | ||