For Hoffman and Lund, a patent office examiner found several flaws in the idea being patented-a method of weakening tropical cyclones. Normally, the patent would be granted if the concept seems logical. However, the inventors made three flaws in unwarranted assumptions and calculation errors, specifications lacking experimental verification and lack of expert support. The rejection went on appeal but the original decision was upheld by the federal court.
Also, the original inventors seemed to have drawn up the patent document rather than professionals. Speculation may suggest the inventors wanted to avoid the cunning nature of the lawyer. Undoubtedly, the professional touch to the patent claim would not have helped since professionals did not support the concept. Perhaps, experimental data would have provided a better chance to get the patent accepted. Also, the diagram for the document does not seem very detailed.
Ultimately, there are limitations to the patents filed to the USPTO. However, this case does raise flags since people were willing such submissions. For the inventors, there is not a very transparent access to some of the regulations including 35 U.S.C. §112 unless there was an active search for it. Some would argue that those filing patents should be aware but the changing landscape of patents does make it difficult to keep up. The lessons are be sensible and ensure the patent claim meets the general requirements of novelty and practicality.
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/enablement-invention-skepticism.html
I spoke about this topic on my blog as well. I think it is imperative that a patent lawyer is used to file a patent. Not only is the technique almost baseless (very, very preliminary calculations were done), but it was also presented in an unclear way. As someone who has gone through part of the patent process so far, the regulations are easy for anyone to access if the inventor is so inclined. Which I would argue, they should be.
ReplyDeleteI think your point of a lack of prototype is interesting. From what I understand, and I may be wrong so someone please correct me if I am, but in order to file a patent, all you really need is an idea. You don't need proof that your idea works as long as in the patent it logically does. You don't need proof that you've decided to create your idea. You just need the idea. I think there's something not right about this. A person who has worked out an invention and has a functional prototype should be granted a patent. A person who just has a light bulb thought but hasn't tested his/her invention, shouldn't. For all we know, they'll fail at the invention and someone else may have the same idea but they manage to obtain the resources and skill to make this idea a reality. However, that person doesn't get credit for their idea because someone else already has the patent. Seems a bit unfair to me.
ReplyDelete"A person who has worked out an invention and has a functional prototype should be granted a patent. A person who just has a light bulb thought but hasn't tested his/her invention, shouldn't."
DeleteDo you think USPTO policy should change to reflect this statement? If so, what do you think the effects would be on litigation, infringement, etc?
Good Post. I thought it a little funny that someone was applying for such a vague type of patent. It would be pretty cool however if they were actually trying to work on such technology. Weakening tropical storms.. I wonder how long the human race has yet to reach that level of applied technology
ReplyDeleteHi Norman, you've been writing intelligent posts with useful links on appropriate topics. It's great that you make your opinion known as well as that of others. You could improve by including more references. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete