datasheets.com EBN.com EDN.com EETimes.com Embedded.com PlanetAnalog.com TechOnline.com  
Events
UBM Tech
UBM Tech

EDA DesignLine Blog

Comment


DrQuine

2/17/2013 10:20 PM EST

Yes, when I received my 40th patent, a friend cited this swing patent as an ...

More...



Tom_nickname

1/31/2013 6:17 PM EST

The patent office were thinking "if this idiot wants to give us a few thousand ...

More...

What were they thinking: Crazy method patent

Brian Bailey

1/25/2013 12:12 PM EST

I have talked about design patents quite a bit lately. Basically a design patent protects the look and feel of something. It doesn’t have to disclose how it would be built or used. That would be a utility patent. There are several kinds of patent that differs only in the way it is worded. One such wording is a method patent. As you can probably guess, this type of patent only describes how you would do something, the steps you might take but does not declare how something is built. Let me show you a very simple example that at the same time is quite absurd. That way we can laugh and learn at the same time.

The patent in question is number 6368227 and titled “Method of swinging on a swing”. This patent issued in 2002 and kind of goes along with a comment on a recent article saying that it makes it clear that the patent office only looks at technical papers or other forms of printed materials in order to apply a novel and non-obviousness test. The abstract states “A method of swing on a swing is disclosed, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.

And for those who rightly state that the only part of a patent that really says anything important are the claims – here are the claims in their entirety.

I claim:

1. A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the method is practiced independently by the user to create the side-to-side motion from an initial dead stop.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises the step of: e) inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the magnitude of the component of forward and back motion is less than the component of side-to-side motion.

So, the next time you get on a swing and decide to go from side to side, you had better obtain a license first – otherwise you could be taken to court! The good news is that the inventor says that licenses are freely available from the inventor upon request. Better get one of those licenses!


Brian Bailey – keeping you covered


If you found this article to be of interest, visit EDA Designline where you will find the latest and greatest design, technology, product, and news articles with regard to all aspects of Electronic Design Automation (EDA).

Also, you can obtain a highlights update delivered directly to your inbox by signing up for the EDA Designline weekly newsletter – just Click Here to request this newsletter using the Manage Newsletters tab (if you aren't already a member you'll be asked to register, but it's free and painless so don't let that stop you).




Garcia-Lasheras

1/26/2013 5:11 AM EST

Uff!!... So if you are eating a crustless sandwich while swinging in a swing, you can really get in serious trouble.

Thousands of children around the world are incurring in this double patent infringement, somebody should advice them before being too late!!

Sign in to Reply



BrianBailey

1/26/2013 1:55 PM EST

Ah yes - I wonder how many politicians and even presidents have fallen foul of the law on these! We should ask them before letting them take office!!

Sign in to Reply



David Ashton

1/26/2013 5:21 PM EST

Better just shoot them first (before Obama's gun control laws take effect....) :-)

Sign in to Reply



GordonScott

1/28/2013 11:30 AM EST

Fortunately it's a fairly weak patent that doesn't outlaw Lissajous patterns or strange attractors.

I presume what the author was thinking was to demonstrate how silly the system can get. The Patent Office alone know what they were thinking (if anything).

Next patent "method for licking an ice cream"

Sign in to Reply



Garcia-Lasheras

1/28/2013 1:05 PM EST

I completely agree. And the point is that the author get it... just as Brian is widely acomplishing this goal too with the last "what were they thinkink" patent related post series!!

Sign in to Reply



Tom_nickname

1/31/2013 6:17 PM EST

The patent office were thinking "if this idiot wants to give us a few thousand dollars to get a completely useless patent why should we think for more than 10 seconds before taking his money?"

Sign in to Reply



eng_steve

1/28/2013 12:11 PM EST

Good news. This patent was reexamined in 2003 and all claims were cancelled.

Sign in to Reply



BrianBailey

1/28/2013 3:12 PM EST

Ahhh. Done that one. Would have to find patent. It was for a revolving cone that would allow certyain lick patterns to be made in the ice cream!

Sign in to Reply



BrianBailey

1/28/2013 3:12 PM EST

Good to hear it. Thanks for letting us know.

Sign in to Reply



DrQuine

2/17/2013 10:20 PM EST

Yes, when I received my 40th patent, a friend cited this swing patent as an example of the fact that patents can be trivial. In this case, the kid who invented it may have thought he invented something new - and the examiner must have been enough of a geek never to have played on a swing and discovered the prior art himself. Nevertheless, as eng_steve observed, the patent was quickly reversed. It is unfortunate that the patent reversal appears as the final page of the patent so the casual reader may miss it. Maybe overturned patents need a big "X" across the first page.

Sign in to Reply



Please sign in to post comment

Navigate to related information

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)