| |
Basic Information
- Definition
- What is Patentable?
- Term of Patent
Patent Infringement
- What is Infringement?
- Who Can be an Infringer?
Avoiding Patent Infringement
Protecting a New Invention
- Documenting Conception of the Invention
- Documenting Development of the Invention
- Statutory Bars to Obtaining a Patent
- Patentability Search
- The mechanics of Filing and Prosecuting a Patent Application
- Patenting the Invention - Practical Considerations
Miscellaneous Items on Patents
- Employee Invention Agreements; Company Patent Procedures
- Patent Assignments, Licenses and Agreements
- Government Contracts
- Foreign Patents
Examples of Various Patents
TOP
A patent is a grant from the U.S. government giving the patent holder the right to exclude others from:
the invention in the United States.
A patent can be obtained for any new and useful:
- machine (any mechanical or electrical device or whatever that does any sort of operation);
- article of manufacture (e.g. a tool, a kitchen implement, a container, a toy, a game, or any useful object;
- process or method (e.g. a manufacturing process, a chemical process, a measuring or testing process, a method of treating a product, or any step or series of steps involving physical change or action);
- composition of matter (e.g. a chemical compound, a food product, fertilizer);
- ornamental object (e.g. a lamp base, jewelry, furniture, an article of clothing);
- plant, living organism or animal (e.g. a microbe to clean up oil spills or a genetically engineered rat used in medical research);
- computer program
provided it meets the requirements of "unobviousness".
CAUTION: The recent trend has been to broaden yet further the scope of things which might be found to be patentable subject matter, as illustrated by the following two examples.
EXAMPLE 1: It used to be that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would customarily reject any patent application dealing with a "method of doing business" as simply being not within the scope of things that might be patented. However, on April 24, 1982, Merrill Lynch’s patent for Cash Management Account issued as U.S. Patent 4,346,442. The system combines three financial services: A brokerage/security account, money market funds and a charge checking account. Shortly after issuance of the patent, Paine Webber filed a declaratory judgment action on the basis that the patent was invalid and that it did not recite statutory subject matter and, more specifically, that it was merely an algorithm and involved "nothing more than familiar business systems, that is, that the financial management of individual brokerage accounts." However, the court stated that the patent covers a method of operation on a computer to effectuate a business activity and was within the scope of patentable subject matter.
EXAMPLE 2: In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court decision of the Chakrabarty case held that a patent application on a human made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down components of crude oil was patentable subject matter.
EXAMPLE 3: On April 7, 1987, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks issued a notice stating that "the Patent and Trademark Office now considers non-naturally occurring non-human multi-cellular living organisms, including animals, to be patentable subject matter. This followed the April 3, 1987 decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals (Ex Parte Allen) where it was held that polyploid oysters are naturally occurring manufactures or compositions of matter. The Board relied upon the language of the earlier Chakrabarty case which stated that Congress intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man."
However, the Commissioner stopped short of stating that human beings could be patented with the following language, "a claim directed to or including within its scope a human being will not be considered to be patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. The grant of a limited, but exclusive property right in a human being is prohibited by the Constitution." He further pointed out that products simply found in nature could not be considered patentable subject matter. Rather, it must be given a new form, quality, properties or combinations not present in the original article (i.e., the animal) existing in nature.
EXAMPLE 4: On April 12, 1988, the first U.S. patent on an animal was issued, U.S. 4,736,866, entitled "TRANSGENIC NON-HUMAN MAMMALS". The patent covers a mouse into whose embryonic tissue are introduced activated cancer genes, so that the mouse is born with activated cancer genes in all its cells. The resulting mouse is extremely sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals and will develop tumors quickly if exposed to even small amounts of these.
PRACTICAL ADVICE: This indicates that the trend of the patent law over the last decade or so continues to be to expand the scope of subject matter which might be patented. Thus, even though a new concept might not, in accordance with today’s standards, be within the scope of possibly patentable subject matter, in next few years the law may go even further to include such subject matter.
NOTE: Further examples of some patents to illustrate the variety of subject matter that might be patented is given at the end of this chapter.
Note: The filing date of a patent application is the date the patent application was filed in the Patent Trademark Office. After a patent application has gone through prosecution successfully (which could be a 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 year period or longer), the patent application may pass to issue.
The term of the patent used to be 17 years from the date of issue. On June 8, 1995 the laws were changed so that the life of a patent is now 20 years from the date of filing. Any patent application filed after June 8, 1995 will have a life of 20 years from the date of filing. The patent is not enforceable until the patent application issues into a patent.
 COMMENTS: Some inventions are made too early to be of commercial value. For example, Robert Goddard, who might be called the father of rocket propulsion, developed any number of the basic patents on rocket propulsion. The launching of most any satellite into space likely uses at least dozens of Goddard’s inventions. Consider as an example U.S. Patent No. 1,102,653, patented on July 7, 1914, covering the concept of a two-stage rocket (see Fig. 1). Look at the Goddard patent cover page on the right. With the term of a patent being at that time 17 years, this patent expired in 1931, long before the United States began firing multi-stage rockets into space. If Goddard’s patents had still been in effect during the apogee of the space program, he likely would have received substantial compensation by filing a claim under his patents against the United States government. Even though Goddard was not so paid directly for his patents, in recognition of Goddard’s substantial contribution, years later Congress did vote to give him (or more precisely, I believe, his widow) a substantial payment.
TOP
Direct infringement occurs from doing any one of the following without the consent of the patent owner:
- making the invention
- using the invention, or
- selling the invention.
To be an infringement, the act must occur:
- during the term of the patent,
- within the United States (This limitation of what constitutes the act being in the U.S. is subject to interpretation as illustrated by the following examples.)
EXAMPLE l: When the patented item is made abroad but sold or used in the United States, there is an infringement;
EXAMPLE 2: If a product is manufactured abroad by using a process which is covered by a U.S. patent, when the product so manufactured is sold or used in the U.S., this could be an infringement of the U.S. patent.
EXAMPLE 3: When an item is made in the United States and exported, this is also an infringement, since the making occurs in the United States. (Note: Further when separate parts of a patented combination are made in the United States, but assembled into the form of the patented combination outside of the United States, this may still be an infringement of the U.S. patent.
EXAMPLE 4: Inventions made or used in U.S. vehicles which are in outer space are now deemed to be made or used in the U.S.
One who actively induces another to infringe is liable as an infringer.
One who sells a component of a patented invention can be guilty of contributory infringement when:
- the person knows the component to be especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the patent, and
- the component is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
 EXAMPLE: U.S. Patent 3,4l8,999, issued December 3l, l968 is directed toward a "Method of Swallowing a Pill." It deals with the problem that some people have of gagging or choking while swallowing medicinal pills. This is a method patent intended to overcome that problem. Look at the Davis patent cover page on the right. Claim l of the patent reads as follows:
"The method of swallowing a pill by a human subject which comprises the steps of taking a single swallowable amount of a liquid in the mouth together with a pill having a density in the range of about 0.4 to about 0.95 and a volume in the range from about 0.2 cubic centimeters to about l.7 cubic centimeters, then bowing the head downwardly and forwardly while retaining said liquid and pill in the mouth, and then swallowing same while the head is held in said downwardly position."
How could this patent be infringed? Assume that Phil’s Pharmaceutical, without a license from the patent holder, makes and sells pills having the density and volume specified in the claim, and Phil is sued for patent infringement. Phil defends by saying, "This patent is for a method of swallowing the pill. I only make and sell the pills, but I never swallow any. Accordingly there’s no infringement." Phil is likely correct in this position as to direct infringement. However, let’s assume it is proven that people who buy Phil’s pills actually do swallow the pills as specified in the claim of the patent. If Phil prints on the containers directions which specify the steps recited in Claim l of the patent, under these circumstances, it is quite likely that Phil would be liable for inducing infringement.
COMMENT: What of the change of contributory infringement? That would depend on whether or not pills of this size and density can be considered a staple article of commerce, or whether they are specially made for use in this method of swallowing a pill. In addition, it must be shown that Phil knew that these pills were specially adapted for use in a method which would be an infringement of the patent.
Any one of the following could be an infringer of a patented invention:
- the manufacturer
- the subcontractor who makes a specialized component
- the wholesaler
- the retailer
- the end user of the patented invention
- an importer (either by selling the patented item in this country, or possibly by inducing infringement, although he himself does not make, use or sell the invention)
- someone who makes the invention for his own use (except if this is merely "experimental use")
TOP
TYPICAL SITUATION: You are a manufacturer who is designing a new product or planning a new manufacturing process.
PRACTICAL ADVICE: Consider conducting a patent infringement study before you are committed to a particular design. This involves identifying the relevant patents by a search of Patent Office records and studying the claims of the patents. If it turns out there is an infringement problem and you have not yet made a substantial financial commitment and still have flexibility of design options, you are in a better position to adopt one of the following courses:
- redesign to avoid infringement,
- negotiate a reasonable license with the patent holder,
- drop the whole project with fewer losses if the infringement risks are too great.
Early diagnosis of the potential problem is the key.
CAUTION: a. In the last decade, with all patent cases on appeal now being referred to a single Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the "pro-patent" pendulum has swung far to the right. The presumption of validity has been greatly strengthened. Treble damages and attorneys fees can be imposed if "willful infringement" is found. Also in some instances, the owner of a company or a key person who is responsible for the infringement can be found personally liable.
b. Even if the product or process is itself covered by a U.S. Patent, it can still infringe some other U.S. Patent. For example, there may be an earlier patent covering an underlying concept on which the client’s later patent is an improvement. Or there could be a patent covering some feature of the product other than that upon which the patent is based.
c. Even though the product has been approved by any number of federal agencies, this doesn’t clear it of patent infringement. Even the U.S. Patent Office doesn’t give that sort of clearance when it issues a patent.
 EXAMPLE: The Wright brothers’ patent, U.S. 821,393, issued on May 22, 1906, and covered generally the concept of ailerons, which made controlled flight possible. Look at the Wright patent cover page on the right. By bending the outer trailing edges of one side of the wings upwardly and the other trailing edges of the other side of the wings downwardly, the airplane could be caused to rotate about its longitudinal axis, thus stabilizing the airplane and making controlled flight possible. The Wright brothers accomplished this by a combination of ropes and pulleys which "warped" the wings slightly to accomplish this action. Subsequent to the Wright brothers’ patent, there were any number of other technical developments relating to wing configuration, ailerons, trailing edge flaps, etc., and many of these were patentable. However, to incorporate these later technical developments into an aircraft with adequate stability, it was also necessary to incorporate the basic concept of ailerons which was covered by the Wright brothers’ patent.Thus, even though the later developments were patented, this grant of a patent did not give the later patent holder the right to infringe the Wright brothers’ patent. Conversely, if the Wright brothers wished to use the new improvement of the later patent holder, the Wright brothers would have to obtain a license from the later patentee (or accept the risks of patent infringement)
COMMENTS: This concept of exclusionary rights is often difficult for those outside of the patent profession to comprehend. However, misconception on this point can often lead to disastrous consequences, as illustrated by the following example:
EXAMPLE: Joe Thompson has an issued patent for a new carburetor for an internal combustion engine. Joe has three investors who want to contribute $20,000 each for building a prototype and marketing it, but before committing to the investment, they want to know whether there are any potential patent problems. Joe informs them that since he has been granted a U.S. patent, and since that grant gives him the exclusive rights to the invention, there can certainly be no patent problems. In other words the Patent Office has given its official stamp of approval.
COMMENT: Right? - wrong!!! Even though the patent is issued, there may be any number of earlier patents which cover concepts incorporated in Joe’s patented device. If an infringement problem does develop, Joe might find himself subject to a violation of the securities laws for improper representations and be personally liable to return to the investors all of the money they invested. (This is a complex legal issue beyond the scope of this book.)
d. Good intentions are no defense against patent infringement.
e. Be particularly cautious with a product in a rapidly expanding technology where many of the important improvements have been made in recent years, since there is a higher likelihood that these improvements are covered by unexpired patents.
TOP
TYPICAL SITUATION: You have a new idea. You want to know how to get it protected, how can you find out if it’s not already patented, can someone else steal it, etc.
PRACTICAL ADVICE - WHAT TO DO IMMEDIATELY
Make sure you promptly prepare a written description of the invention to document the date of conception. Each page of this description should be signed and dated by the inventor (as of the date of signing); signed and dated (as of the date of signing) by at least one witness (preferably two or more) who has read and understood the description of the invention.
PRACTICE TIP: If you are the attorney and your client has not yet prepared a written description, you can have a short description of the invention typed up while the inventor is in your office. He can then sign it as inventor, and you can sign it yourself as a witness. This will document his date of conception.
CAUTION: This documenting of conception is only a first step and is not the same as patent protection. However, in a priority contest between two separate inventors, proof of the date of conception can be critical, along with other factors such as date of first actual reduction to practice, date of filing a patent application, and the inventor’s diligence toward actual reduction to practice or filing the patent application.
You should keep written records of all activities relating to developing the invention, such as test results, photographs or videos of operation and test procedures, invoices, description of operation, etc. These also should be signed and dated by the inventor and by one or more witnesses who have witnessed the actual operation or tests. In a priority contest, this can be critical in documenting the inventor’s diligence and actual reduction to practice of the invention.
Be sure there a possibility of statutory bars of sale, use or publication?
A U.S. Patent cannot be obtained if more than one year prior to the filing date of the patent application, the invention was described in a printed publication anywhere in the world, sold or on sale in the United States, or in "public use" in the United States (Note: "public use" includes commercial use, even though not exposed to the public.)
This one year grace period may be close to expiring and any patent rights could be irretrievably lost if a U.S. Patent application is not filed within the one year period.
NOTE: The terms "printed publication", "on sale", and "public use" have been interpreted in many court decisions, and certain exceptions exist with the literal meaning of the terms.
CAUTION: If foreign patent protection is contemplated, then at least the U.S. application ought to be on file before there is any disclosure or publication of the invention. See "Foreign Patents," Chapter 3.
Usually, the next step is to conduct a patentability search on the idea, and at this stage you will need the services of a patent specialist. The "usual" patentability search is only a small fraction of the cost of filing a patent application and it may show that there is very little chance of obtaining a patent.
It is assumed that by the time you have initiated the patentability search and are considering the possibility of filing a patent application, you will be seeking the counsel of a competent patent attorney. The preparation of the patent application and the prosecution of this patent application through the labyrinthian procedures of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is a highly complex process full of traps and pitfalls. Your patent attorney will be able to guide you through this "mine field" only if you give him (or her) full information and cooperation. Here are a few hints:
- It is absolutely necessary that you disclose to the Patent Office all "prior art" which could include any publication anywhere in the world, prior commercial use in the United States, other products already available in the United States, and U.S. and foreign patents. If a full disclosure of prior art is not made, an if this is found out in later litigation, you could subject yourself to a serious counterclaim for treble damages and attorney’s fees.
- Make a full disclosure of the "best mode" of practicing the invention.
COMMENT: The philosophy of the patent law is that you are making a contract with the government. If you make a full disclosure of your invention so that others would be able to practice it after the patent expires, then the government is willing to give you your monopoly during the life of the patent. However, there must be this full disclosure of the "best mode". If you withhold some information (such as a preferred ingredient in the composition or a "tricky step" to the manufacturing process), not only may your patent be found invalid, but you could be subjecting yourself to a serious counterclaim for treble damages and attorney’s fees.
 In addition to carefully reviewing the descriptive portion of the patent application to make sure it is correct and complete, and also includes the various alternative configurations which might be practical, take a little bit of additional time (maybe an hour or two) to review with your patent attorney at least the broader claims (i.e., the numbered paragraphs that appear at the end of the patent application). To infringe a claim, it is in general necessary to include each and every element or limitation recited in the claim. The general rule is that the less the claim includes, the broader it is. An example is found in the patent to K.C. Gillette, U.S. 775,134, issued November 15, 1904. Look at the Gillette patent cover page on the right. The first claim reads as follows:
"As a new article of manufacture, a flexible and detachable blade for safety razors."
THAT IS A BROAD CLAIM!!!
In addition to trying for broad claims, there should also be claims of intermediate and more narrow scope as a backup position. (The broad claims may later to be found to be invalid, but your more narrow claims may hold up and still be of value).
FURTHER CHANGES IN THE LAW: Note: As of June 8, 1995, it became possible to file in the U.S. a "provisional patent application" which can be prepared and filed at less expense. However, the regular patent application must be filed within one year of the filing date of the provisional application to continue the patenting process.
The decision of whether to file a patent application is one of practical considerations. If the results of the search are favorable, you then need to make that difficult decision on whether to go ahead with the patent application. Here is some general advice:
- For the independent inventor who wants to sell or license his idea without having first built a prototype and worked out the engineering problems, an investment in a patent application should be regarded as very much of a long shot. The costs in obtaining a U.S. patent will probably be at least as much as the costs for a modest week’s vacation to Hawaii for two people. If the inventor would rather spend the money in patenting and promoting his invention than taking a vacation or making a down payment on a new car, that may be perfectly all right, provided he is not depending on the expected profits from the invention to put groceries on the table.
- For the inventor who has actually built the invention and worked out the engineering problems, the odds are somewhat better, but the road to commercial success still quite likely has many obstacles.
- For the company or person who is planning to manufacture the product himself, there are stronger reasons for obtaining patent protection. Offensively, it may enable him to prevent potential competitors from copying the product. Defensively, it may prevent others from patenting the same or a similar idea, and it may provide leverage for a cross-licensing situation where a competitor has a possibly threatening patent.
CAUTION: Beware of the "high flyers", (particularly some of the "invention development" companies) who want to promote your invention for a fee and paint unrealistically rosy pictures of imminent wealth. The independent inventor, even though he may have mature business judgment in other areas, is often quite susceptible to permitting his enthusiasm for his new idea to cloud his judgment.
TOP
Any business having employees who are doing any sort of original work in the business should have a written invention agreement for its employees. This agreement should obligate the employee to:
- disclose to the company inventions and copyrightable subject matter relating to the company’s business,
- assign such inventions and copyrights to the company,
- keep proprietary information of the company confidential.
There should also be well-defined procedures for employees recording new ideas, submitting the ideas to the company, and for timely review and evaluation of the ideas.
CAUTION: A number of states, (including the state of Washington) have specific statutes limiting the scope of the inventions which can be required to be assigned to the company under an employee invention agreement.
Patent assignments (i.e., any transfer of ownership in whole or in part) including a security interest should be recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (License agreements do not need to be recorded, and usually are not so recorded.)
Co-inventors or co-owners of a patent should have an agreement between themselves defining rights of use. Otherwise, an unrestricted joint tenancy situation arises which permits independent action by either party, without accounting to the other co-owner for the profits. This is utter chaos when trying to commercialize the invention. (See the two "HORROR STORIES" of Chapter I.).
In licensing a patent, there is an ever changing body of law regarding anti-trust and patent misuse. Many licensing expedients are per se violations which make the patent totally unenforceable and may subject the patent holder to an expensive counterclaim (possible treble damages) if he attempts to enforce his patent.
EXAMPLE: Company A sues Company B for a patent infringement. In the course of the lawsuit, it comes to light that Company A has a licensing agreement with a third party under which the licensee is restricted from selling competing products, even those are outside of the scope of the patents.
DIAGNOSIS: This is deemed to be patent misuse, and the patent becomes unenforceable, until possibly the misuse is purged at a later time. Further, if Company B had been a former licensee paying royalties, Company B could well have a valid counterclaim to collect all past royalties paid to Company A.
Further there are peculiarities in patent agreements that would not exist in other commercial agreements.
EXAMPLE: George grants a license under his patent on his new invention to Acme Manufacturing for a royalty. Acme insists that the license agreement have a clause where George indemnifies Acme against patent infringement.
ANALYSIS: This seems reasonable. After all, if George has a valid patent, that should give George the exclusive right to make, use or sell the patented invention, and George is simply guaranteeing this right for Acme. Right? Wrong!!! First, this is based on a fundamental misconception that the patent gives the patent holder the right to make, use or sell the invention. It does not!! It simply gives the patent holder the right to exclude others from these acts. There could be an earlier dominating patent that would pose an infringement problem. (This is explained earlier in this chapter, relative to the Wright brothers’ patent.) Or the particular design may overlap into some other design areas that would infringe yet another patent. Also Acme would likely have control of the detailed design and may complete the design in such a way as to infringe another patent, and the infringement could have been avoided by an equally acceptable alternative design.
FURTHER ANALYSIS: Further, we have to distinguish from supplying a product to another and assigning or licensing another under a patent. If George were to design and manufacture a product and sell it to Acme, then an indemnification against patent infringement would be expected, and even absent such an indemnification agreement, the law would likely impose an implied warranty that the product was free of patent infringement problems. But this is not the same as an assignment or license agreement.
CAUTION: Also, if the product supplied involves a computer program, then the supplier of the program may want to expressly disavow any obligation of indemnification against patent infringement, simply because the patent picture in computer programs is so uncertain that a company supplying the computer program may not want to assume that risk.
The greatest danger here is that two companies will drift into a joint effort without having any written agreement and may have totally neglected to give any serious thought as to how the patent rights, copyrights, or proprietary information might be allocated among the parties, how these rights might be enforced if there is an infringement, responsibility for infringing the rights of others, etc. Some types of problems that could be encountered are illustrated by the following examples.
EXAMPLE l: The Valiant Valve Company was having a problem with the gasket leaking in one of its valve designs. It engages the Gallant Gasket Company to help solve the problem. They agree that any patentable inventions and proprietary information will simply be shared equally by the parties and have no other provisions relating to patents.
ANALYSIS: This is possibly the worst arrangement. As discussed in the Co-ownership Agreements paragraph above, when there is unrestricted joint ownership, either party can act independently of the other, making, using or selling the invention, without accounting to the other. Further, there is no procedure as to how the patent rights are to be enforced.
EXAMPLE 2: Let’s take the same situation as in the example immediately above, but they agree that each party will own the patents and proprietary information which it originates.
ANALYSIS: This also has its problems. Four new patentable developments may come out of the effort, two being owned by one party, and two by the other. It may take a combination of all four technical developments to make a useful product. If the patent rights and related proprietary information are split, neither of the parties would have the right to make the optimized end product, unless they can at a later time come to some kind of agreement.
COMMENT: In such joint development agreements, it is often desirable to make sure that any patentable developments and other intellectual property rights will be assigned to a single entity (e.g. to one company or the other, or possibly a single legal entity created by the two companies). There are some very good reasons for doing this, relative to the filing and prosecution of patent applications that may result from the joint development. If the patentable inventions are assigned to a single entity, then the work of one inventor would not be considered prior art against another inventor, provided certain procedures are followed.
NOTE: This is a rather complex issue in patent law, and the advice of a patent specialist will likely be needed for a more complete explanation. Also for two "HORROR STORIES" relating to this same problem area, see Chapter l.
FURTHER COMMENT: The examples given above are simply to indicate the problems. While there are no "perfect solutions", there are some ways to alleviate the problems at least partially. A further discussion of this is beyond the scope of this book.
Many of the tax benefits that were available through patent licensing have been eliminated when the preferential treatment for capital gains was deleted from the tax law, etc. However, these provisions should possibly still be considered in a licensing agreement in the event that the practice of preferential treatment for capital gains is resurrected.
When an invention is first conceived or actually reduced to practice under a government contract, the government usually obtains some rights in the invention. However, in many instances these rights will be given back to the government contractor, subject to certain "march in" rights. There are special provisions covering patent rights, such as limiting the contractors rights to require assignment of inventions made by subcontractors, having employees working under the contract be under employee invention agreement, etc.
A United States patent does not have effect in foreign countries, except as noted in the earlier section on infringement. After a United States patent application has been filed, the applicant can file a patent application in most all foreign countries (Taiwan is an exception) within a year of his U.S. filing date (within six months for a design patent) and obtain the benefit of his U.S. filing date. This can be of critical importance in obtaining foreign rights. Also, under other treaty provisions (the Patent Cooperation Treaty), this one year may be extended for filing in certain countries.
CAUTION: Also, if foreign filing is contemplated, the U.S. application should be filed before any publication or any other public disclosure showing the invention anywhere in the world, since in most foreign countries there is not the one year grace period, as in the U.S., which permits filing within one year of the printed publication and other occurrences that could be a bar to filing the application.
TOP
The following patents are presented simply to give examples of the types of things which might be patented.
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This covers the concept of a particular type of a "Chess Game Apparatus". It should be noted that while this is a utility patent (directed toward the functional aspects of the board as it is used in a game), this game board might also be covered in a design patent, provided its overall appearance is sufficiently different from preexisting articles. Look at the Sterler patent cover page on the right. |
 |
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This covers a particular type of a mirror. The upper portion of the mirror, which reflects the image of the head, remains substantially planar, so as to give a true reflection. However, the lower portion of the mirror can be curved about its vertical axis so as to make the image of the lower portion of the person’s body somewhat thinner. Therefore, the person looking at himself (or herself, as shown in the patent) in the mirror can observe what he or she may look like if sufficient weight is lost so as to reduce the person’s width. Look at the Doolittle patent cover page on the right. |
 |
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This covers what is called a "Road Machine". Look at the Selden patent cover page on the right. Claim l is given below.
" l. The combination with a road-locomotive, provided with suitable running gear including a propelling wheel and steering mechanism, of a liquid hydrocarbon gas engine of the compression type, comprising one or more power cylinders, a suitable liquid-fuel receptacle, a power shaft connected with and arranged to run faster than the propelling wheel, an intermediate clutch or disconnecting device and a suitable carriage body adapted to the conveyance of persons or goods, substantially as described."
|
 |
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This is entitled "Method of Preparing Food Products." Look at the Birdseye patent cover page on the right. The concept of the invention is disclosed fairly well in claim l of the patent which reads as follows:
"l. A method of packaging and preserving food which consists in first packing the food in the container in which it is to be marketed and freezing the same under pressure applied to substantial surface areas of the packed container."
In the first page of the patent, some of the features of the process are described as follows:
"The less the air, the more rapidly and efficaciously the block may be frozen, and the less bacteria held in the frozen block. Preferably, the block is encased in the wrapper or carton in which it is later marketed. It is advantageous to make the block comparatively thin, because it is more readily frozen throughout its mass."
|
 |
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This covers a method of selectively thinning trees. This patent is given to illustrate how broadly the concept of a "process" as patentable subject matter can be interpreted. Look at the Savage patent cover page on the right. |
|
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| To illustrate the type of things which might be covered by a design patent, there is shown a page selected at random from the May l0, l983 issue of the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, showing summaries of five design patents which issued on that date. (On Tuesday of each week, summaries of the U.S. Patents which issue for that week are published in the Official Gazette.) Look at the Gazette page on the right. |
 |
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This covers the design of an airplane. Some articles may be susceptible to protection as both a utility patent and a design patent. For example, a new configuration of an airplane might be patentable as an article of manufacture or a machine, because of certain functional characteristics relating to the aerodynamic effect it produces, and also as a design patent because of its novel appearance. Look at the Allred patent cover page on the right. |
 |
|
Click below for full screenshot |
| This is for a "Self-Serving Store." Figure 2 of that patent is a top plan view of a store layout. Look at the Saunders patent cover page on the right. The first claim of that patent reads as follows:
"l. An apparatus for the vending of merchandise having a series of merchandise holders or display cabinets arranged parallel with each other and with spaces between them to form aisles and with ends of alternate cabinets spaced from the wall or partition in the store, whereby a circuitous path is provided through which the customer may pass from the entrance to the exit, substantially as set forth."
|
 |
|
|
