Intermittent Wiper Inventor Dies

[nospam]

I re-inserted the "Like Drugs" you chose to snip.

Having to pay for copying the design of intermittent wipers was
because the car makers didn't come up with their own design.

They did come up with their own designs which turned out after much
argument to be similar enough to infringe a patent and cost them (and so
the buyers of cars) $millions.

Are you seriously suggesting than large car manufacturers with the ability
to design and manufacture whole cars could not come up with a design for an
intermittent wiper without stealing someone else's?

Again, to
reiterate the same idea you continue denying, having to pay the
originator is what motivates much invention in the first place. Your
persistence sounds sound like Third World politics.

Most invention is motivated by having a problem which needs a solution. I
would wager most patent searches are done by those who have already
invented a solution and are checking if someone else already patented a
similar solution which means they would have to pay license fees to use
their own invention or go back and invent a different enough solution which
does not infringe a patent.
--

 

[Rich Grise]

.

Maybe this gent's mistake was trying to pitch his idea to Detroit, a
recalcitrant dinosaur that even today resists innovation.

What Detroit _really_ needs is a turn signal flasher that, after, say,
one minute, gives a loud alarm to the driver, as a reminder to those
idiots who drive down the freeway with their turn signal flashing.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

What Detroit _really_ needs is a turn signal flasher that, after, say,
one minute, gives a loud alarm to the driver, as a reminder to those
idiots who drive down the freeway with their turn signal flashing.

Cheers!
Rich

an engine over-temperature alarm.

never again will I buy a car whose coolant reservoir is opaque,
regardless of the colour of the coolant.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Jim Thompson]

an engine over-temperature alarm.

never again will I buy a car whose coolant reservoir is opaque,
regardless of the colour of the coolant.

Cheers
Terry

Measure the capacitance thru a hose to the coolant ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Nobody]

No, that's 'novelty,' another requirement.

It's *supposed* to be another requirement, but the USPTO has tried to
scrap the non-obviousness requirement by interpreting it as being
equivalent to the novelty requirement.

'Obvious' is subjective, obviously, but there are a few guiding
principles. One is that if an idea is so obvious and has commercial
value, surely someone would be exploiting it.

Given the sum total of existing human knowledge, there are a near-infinite
number of "obvious" corollaries. OTOH, there is only a finite amount of
human capital available to actually exploit them (or even write them
down) right now.

Here is an example of how to get patents on something obvious for which
there is no prior art.

First, make a list of computing applications or technologies which involve
the use of a communications channel (e.g. email). Then, wait for a new
communication technology to be invented, and start submitting patents for
"method and apparatus to (e.g.) send email via <insert new communication
technology>".

It seems to have worked well enough for the previous round of "method and
apparatus to <insert age-old process> using a computer network" patents.

You don't need to invent either component; you just need to "invent" the
combination of the two.

Constructing a working prototype is easiest if the nature of the
components is such that you already have an abstraction layer (e.g. the
OS' networking subsystem) to ensure that new "instances" of one class
(e.g. communication technologies) will automatically work with all
existing instances of the other class (e.g. applications).

 

[James Arthur]

It's *supposed* to be another requirement, but the USPTO has tried to
scrap the non-obviousness requirement by interpreting it as being
equivalent to the novelty requirement.

You made a definite statement: "The USPTO's preferred definition of
non-obvious is...", then described their definition of 'novelty.' I
was responding to that.

That's not their definition of 'non-obvious.' The USPTO's preferred
definition of "non-obvious" is given in Vol. 35, section 103 of The
United States Code (35 USC 103):

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm

and clarified at length by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) (the governing manual used by examiners), sections 2142-2146:

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2142.html

Those sections (easy to read--they're not difficult or lengthy)
describe and clarify official practice. It's not fool-proof, but it's
a lot more robust--and there's a lot more to it--than simply 'no pre-
existing record.'

(The 'novelty' requirement is described by 35 USC 102 and MPEP 2132.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_103.htm
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/2132.html)

Given the sum total of existing human knowledge, there are a near-infinite
number of "obvious" corollaries. OTOH, there is only a finite amount of
human capital available to actually exploit them (or even write them
down) right now.

Right. Everything's been invented, everything's obvious, yet people
who could benefit from an 'obvious' variation ignore it because they
don't have time to write it down.

Here is an example of how to get patents on something obvious for which
there is no prior art.

First, make a list of computing applications or technologies which involve
the use of a communications channel (e.g. email). Then, wait for a new
communication technology to be invented, and start submitting patents for
"method and apparatus to (e.g.) send email via <insert new communication
technology>".

It seems to have worked well enough for the previous round of "method and
apparatus to <insert age-old process> using a computer network" patents.

You don't need to invent either component; you just need to "invent" the
combination of the two.

Without commenting on your example, an unforeseen combination of two
existing things / gadgets / elements can be revolutionary. Some of
the best inventions arise from combining seemingly incompatible or
unrelated technologies / devices / components.

Best regards,
James Arthur

 

[Nobody]

You made a definite statement: "The USPTO's preferred definition of
non-obvious is...", then described their definition of 'novelty.' I
was responding to that.

That's not their definition of 'non-obvious.' The USPTO's preferred
definition of "non-obvious" is given in Vol. 35, section 103 of The
United States Code (35 USC 103):

That's not the USPTO's definition, it's the legal definition.

The problem is that the USPTO's interpretation of "non-obvious" is so
narrow that even the slightest difference to prior art is deemed
non-obvious. IOW, the "if it was so obvious, why isn't it written down"
argument.

When USPTO decisions are overturned by the courts, it's invariably a case
of them granting bogus patents rather than rejecting valid ones.

Right. Everything's been invented, everything's obvious,

No. There's a difference between a near-infinite (or even infinite) number
of things and "everything".

yet people
who could benefit from an 'obvious' variation ignore it because they
don't have time to write it down.

No-one has an infinite amount of time.

People won't normally think of a solution until they need one. At the
point that they have a problem to solve, they will think of a solution.
Often the solution is blindingly obvious, but that doesn't mean that
someone else hasn't been granted a patent on it.

I've probably never needed to multiply 69112 by 32536, and I doubt that
anyone has published that specific calculation. That doesn't mean that the
answer is "non-obvious", or that the first person who computes the answer
should get to own it.

Without commenting on your example, an unforeseen combination of two
existing things / gadgets / elements can be revolutionary. Some of
the best inventions arise from combining seemingly incompatible or
unrelated technologies / devices / components.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that entirely foreseeable combinations
get deemed "non-obvious" and patented.

The patent system is currently being implemented as a form of "land rush".
Patents are being granted without any regard to the original goal of
"promoting the progress of science and useful arts".

In many areas (particularly software), patents are actively hindering
progress by making it risky to develop anything without having a team of
lawyers looking over your shoulder to tell you when you've stumbled across
something that's already patented.

 

[JosephKK]

James Arthur dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com posted to
sci.electronics.design:

Very unlikely, IMO, but possible that a clerical error could cause
this.

What most people don't understand is that the description of the
invention (the Specification section) is NOT what is patented. Just
because the thing starts off with an essay about wheelbarrows
doesn't mean he's patented a wheelbarrow.

What's patented is limited to the Claims, which would usually
describe a very particular, specific type of or improvement to a
wheelbarrow. That--and only that--is what's patented.

As far as prior art, any patent instantly self-destructs if prior
art can be proven--you can't patent anything pre-existing.

Cheers,
James Arthur

That may be the way the idea is sold, but just you try it. You are up
against the blind assumption that if the patent was granted, it must
be valid. Too bad the patent examiners cannot be bothered to even
validate the cited literature properly.

 

[JosephKK]

Leon leon355@btinternet.com posted to sci.electronics.design:

I heard about a similar gadget around 1968 (it might have been
inspired by the patent) and built one for my little Fiat 500D, using
a UJT as an oscillator with an SCR driving the motor.

Leon

Hell, i saw the apparatus come out in kit form by the mid 1960's.
Certainly before i started driving in 1966.

 

[James Arthur]

That's not the USPTO's definition, it's the legal definition.

Sorry, that IS the USPTO's definition, and from the governing
documents.

If you want to argue against a certain silly patent, fine. They
exist. Feel free--I'd likely agree.

Examiners can't possibly know everything that is or ever was, so
mistakes are inevitable. There are even mechanisms for challenging
and voiding such patents.

That, however, is not ALL patents.

The problem is that the USPTO's interpretation of "non-obvious" is so
narrow that even the slightest difference to prior art is deemed
non-obvious. IOW, the "if it was so obvious, why isn't it written down"
argument.

That's not their logic. I gave you links to their documented,
enforced examination procedure.

When USPTO decisions are overturned by the courts, it's invariably a case
of them granting bogus patents rather than rejecting valid ones.

People won't normally think of a solution until they need one. At the
point that they have a problem to solve, they will think of a solution.
Often the solution is blindingly obvious, but that doesn't mean that
someone else hasn't been granted a patent on it.

I've probably never needed to multiply 69112 by 32536, and I doubt that
anyone has published that specific calculation. That doesn't mean that the
answer is "non-obvious", or that the first person who computes the answer
should get to own it.

Sigh. Unless you had a novel method or machine for doing it, that
wouldn't be patentable. And if you did, it should be.

Quantities are not patentable. Integers are not patentable.
Algorithms are not patentable (though the machines that embody them
can be).

You have strong feelings, but you don't know much about patents.

With best regards,
James Arthur

 

[JosephKK]

James Arthur dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com posted to
sci.electronics.design:

Sorry, that IS the USPTO's definition, and from the governing
documents.

If you want to argue against a certain silly patent, fine. They
exist. Feel free--I'd likely agree.

Examiners can't possibly know everything that is or ever was, so
mistakes are inevitable. There are even mechanisms for challenging
and voiding such patents.

That, however, is not ALL patents.


That's not their logic. I gave you links to their documented,
enforced examination procedure.




Sigh. Unless you had a novel method or machine for doing it, that
wouldn't be patentable. And if you did, it should be.

Quantities are not patentable. Integers are not patentable.
Algorithms are not patentable (though the machines that embody them
can be).

You have strong feelings, but you don't know much about patents.

With best regards,
James Arthur

Gosh, what part of the difference between 35 USC 103 legislated law
and some CRF citation of regulation don't you understand?

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com posted to
sci.electronics.design:















Gosh, what part of the difference between 35 USC 103 legislated law
and some CRF citation of regulation don't you understand?

I don't understand your point. If you've ever prosecuted an
application you surely know that the examiner nearly always cites 35
USC 102 or 35 USC 103, objections or rejections which must then be
overcome by the applicant.

Sir Mr. Nobody argues 35 USC 103 is not the standard for obviousness,
but it clearly is. That, and as further described in the MPEP (which
I linked), is what governs their daily practice.

I'm not sure what you mean by "CRF" though...maybe you intended "Code
of Federal Regulations"?

Best wishes,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

James Arthur dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com posted to
sci.electronics.design:











That may be the way the idea is sold, but just you try it. You are up
against the blind assumption that if the patent was granted, it must
be valid. Too bad the patent examiners cannot be bothered to even
validate the cited literature properly.

If you think a patent's based on prior art, pony up $2k and request a
re-examination. That re-examination considers any evidence of prior
art you submit. If you can prove prior art, the patent dies.

If you search the archives you'll find *plenty* of patents have met
this fate.

As far as not getting sued for stuff you're working on: anything
described in an expired patent is fair game, anything that's already
known and practiced is fair game. If you can trace your work to
these, you're golden.

Is there a small possibility that you do something new and someone
else later gets a patent on it and sues you? Infinitessimal--hardly
ever happens.

If it does and you have decent documentation of being first, you're
fine--you have a legal right to use it. If you weren't first, then
either pay the royalty, or do things differently. What's the big
deal--the thing was obvious to start with, right? ;-)

In practice, it's hardly ever a problem. That's why infringement is
such big it's a novelty, because it's rare.

Best wishes,
James Arthur

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Robert Kearns... rest in peace.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/050228-9.htm

Tough call...lead a normal life but feel ripped off... or go to war
with the car companies.

"His daughter Maureen Kearns concurred, saying that her father's home
was filled with legal files. "His life was simply this battle," she
said. "

D from BC

I had intermittent wipers on one of my trucks, but a new set of
bearings fixed that problem.


--
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

 

[JosephKK]

James Arthur dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com posted to
sci.electronics.design:

I don't understand your point. If you've ever prosecuted an
application you surely know that the examiner nearly always cites 35
USC 102 or 35 USC 103, objections or rejections which must then be
overcome by the applicant.

Sir Mr. Nobody argues 35 USC 103 is not the standard for
obviousness,
but it clearly is. That, and as further described in the MPEP
(which I linked), is what governs their daily practice.

I'm not sure what you mean by "CRF" though...maybe you intended
"Code of Federal Regulations"?

Best wishes,
James Arthur

The MPEP is in the same class as CFR (CRF was a typo). It largely
repeats and extends 35 USC 103 and 103. To any any extent that fails
to conform to the text of _any_ relevant USC text, it is easily
challenged in court.