On March 26, 1895, Henry Latimer Simmons received U.S. Patent No.536,360 ona Railroad Train that would allow on train to pass another on the same track:
Although the idea seems pretty far-fetched, several years later the Leap Frog Railway at Coney Island provided the concept:
On March 25, 1902, Irving W. Colburn received U.S. Patent No. 696,008 on a Glass Working Machine:
Irving Wightman Colburn was born May 16, 1861, and died September 4, 1917. His first patent (U.S. Patent No. 620,642) for a “Glass Working Machine” that could make bottles issued March 7, 1899. His later ‘008 patent was for a process for the production of continuous flat glass disks which made the mass production for window panes possible. He formed the Colburn Machine Glass Co. in August 1906 but by 1911 he was bankrupt. Toledo Glass Company bought his patents in 1912, and Colburn worked with Toledo Glass to perfect the technology. Toledo Glass eventually became the Libbey-Owens Sheet Glass Company.
On March 23, 1982, U.S. Patent No. 4,320,756 on a Fresh-Air Breathing Device and Method:
This principle was featured in the 2015 Kingsman: The Secret Service where the agents in training breathed through a toilet when the room they were in flooded.
On March 22, 1960, U.S. Patent No. 2,929,459 issued to Gordon Spitzmesser on a Combustible Gas Powered Pogo Stick:
This was apparently not the first patent on a powered pogo stick, Richard J. Mays received U.S. Patent No. 2,510,509 on a Mechanical Jumping Stick issued June 6, 1950:
Nor was it the last, for example David Samiran obtained U.S. Patent No. 3,495,671, issued February 17, 1970, on a Power Assisted Pogo Stick:
Herbert Manfred “Zeppo” Marx the youngest of, and last survivor of, the five Marx Brothers, was comedic actor, appearing in the first five Marx Brothers movies. He was also an inventor. On March 18, 1952, Zeppo received U.S. Patent No. 2,590,026 on a Vapor Delivery Pad for Distributing Moist Heat:
This was not his only invention — we previously blogged about his heart-monitoring watch.
On March 11, 1791, Samuel Mullikin of Philadelphia, became the United States’ first multipatent inventor. In fact, Samuel obtained four patents on March 11, 1791: a MACHINE FOR RAISING A NAP ON CLOTHS; a MACHINE FOR THRASHING GRAIN AND CORN; a BREAKING AND SWINGLING OF HEMP, ETC; and MACHINE FOR CUTTING AND POLISHING STONE AND MARBLE. Samuel received a fifth patent on January 15, 1795, on HEMP AND FLAX BREAKING; and a sixth patent on February 20, 1797, on SCOURING OR SKINNING RICE. Unfortunately, records of these patents were destroyed in the Patent Office fire on December 15, 1836.
While Samuels was the first multipatent inventor, there are hundreds of inventors who reached the same achievement between 1790 and 1828, and many, many more subsequently. Shunpei Yamazaki of Japan is current the most prolific inventor, listed as the inventor in 6517 patents.
On March 10, 1891, U.S. Patent No. 447,918 issued to Almon B. Strowger on an Automatic Telephone Exchange:
Almon help form the Strowger Automatic Telephone Exchange Company, and installed and opened the first commercial exchange in his hometown of La Porte, Indiana. Strowger sold his patents to his associates in 1896 for $1,800 and sold his share in the Automatic Electric Company for $10,000 in 1898. He died a wealthy man on May 26, 1902, in St. Petersburg, Florida. His patents were subsequently resold to Bell Systems for $2.5 million in 1916.
On March 9, 1858, U.S. Patent No. 19578 issued to Abert Potts on a Mailbox:
With the advent of adhesive stamps, postal customers no longer needed to visit a Post Office triggering a search for secure ways postal patrons can more conveniently mail letters more conveniently than travelling to the Post Office. Potts’ letter box was the first officially sanctioned by the Post Office Department. His invention was to incorporate the letter box into either existing street side lamppost, or new lampposts to be provided by his Philadelphia foundry.
The first government contract for letter boxes was for the box patented by Samuel Strong on March 30, 1869:
It was quickly found to be unsatisfactory, and we as substantially redesigned with a rounded top. A similar design was patented by Strong on October 27, 1891 (U.S. Patent No. 462,224)
After the Strong letter box, the Postal Service selected the design by William Doremus, patented June 11, 1889 (U.S. Patent No. 404,828).
The Doremus design was in use from 1889 to 1901, with a three year gap between 1897-1899 in which the Clouse/Scheble box was used (U.S. Patent No. 494,976):
From 1901 to 1903 the second Scheble box was used:
Various other designs were employed, until most letter boxes were replaced with the familiar round top large collection boxes
In Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple Inc., [2023-1512, 2023-1513, 2023-1514] (March 7, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that U.S. Patent Nos.
9,572,499, 10,595,731, and 10,638,941 were unpatentable over certain asserted
prior art.
The Challenged Patents belong to a family of patents related to systems and methods for measuring and analyzing physiological data to detect cardiac arrhythmias. The appeal principally focused on two features of the claims of the Challenged Patents: (1) the use of
machine learning to detect arrhythmias, and (2) the step of confirming the presence of arrhythmias.
The ’499 and ’731 patents broadly contemplate the use of machine learning to detect arrhythmias from ECG data, referencing multiple machine learning operations spanning a diverse range of complexity, ranging from simple operations such as “ranking,” “classifying,” “labelling,” “predicting,” and/or “clustering” data, to more complex operations like “random
forest, association rule learning, artificial neural network, inductive logic programming, [and] support vector machines.” The use of machine learning is recited in dependent claims 7-9 and 17-19 of the ’499 patent and dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 19, and 21-22 of the ’731 patent, but the Federal Circuit pointed out that the description of machine learning in the claims is a a high level of generality, and not clam requires a specific type of machine learning algorithm.
AliveCor raised three main issues on appeal. First, AliveCor argues that the Board erred in finding the machine learning claims were obvious based on Hu 1997 or Li 2012 in combination with Shmueli. Second, AliveCor challenged the Board’s finding that Shmueli rendered the “confirming” step obvious. Finally, AliveCor contended that Apple violated its discovery obligations by failing to produce secondary consideration evidence from a parallel ITC proceeding.
On the challenged to the obviousness of the machine learning claims, the Federal Circuit found that the Board had substantial evidence, including the testimony of Apple’s expert, Dr. Chaitman, for its finding that the teachings of Shmueli combined with Hu 1997 or Li 2012 would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to use a machine learning algorithm to detect arrhythmias in the manner claimed. The Federal Circuit said that to restrict each reference’s teachings to the particular way it implements machine learning, as AliveCor
insists argued, would improperly fail to read the references for all that they disclose, citing In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond its primary purpose.”). The Federal Circuit further said that AliveCor’s approach also conflicted with the reality that the skilled artisan is not an automaton, so it must “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The Federal Circuit concluded that there was nothing improper in the Board’s determination that such an ordinarily skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use machine learning in connection with PPG data, even if this precise use is not expressly disclosed in either Hu 1997 or Li 2012.
Further, the Federal Circuit noted that the Challenged Patents’ machine learning claims, accorded their plain and ordinary meaning in light of the specification, did not require any specific type of machine learning algorithm or a precise method for inputting and analyzing data to detect arrhythmias. Thus, Apple’s burden could be satisfied by substantial evidence that a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use machine learning generally.
The Federal Circuit also found that substantial evidence also supports the Board’s finding
that Shmueli teaches the step of confirming arrythmias using ECG measurements after a potential arrythmia is detected using PPG. The Federal Circuit said that the Board reasonably read portions of Shmueli as teaching a feedback loop in which collected ECG data is used to update the detection parameters used to identify irregularities from incoming
PPG data in real time. The Federal Circuit said that the Board also fairly credited the testimony of Dr. Chaitman, Apple’s expert.
Lastly, as to AliveCor request to vacate the Board’s decisions due to Apple’s failure to comply with Apple’s self-executing discovery obligations, the Federal Circuit found that AliveCor forfeited its argument for failure to raise it with the Board.
On February 12, 1935, U.S. Patent No. 1,991,236, issued to Robert Jemison Van de Graaff on an Electrostatic Generator:
Van de Graaff’s generator could generate direct-current voltages much higher than the 700,000-V which was the state of the art at the time using other methods, on the order of 1,500,000-V. between them.
Van de Graaff’s generator was originally developed as a particle accelerator for physics research, because its high potential can be used to accelerate subatomic particles to great speeds. It was the most powerful type of accelerator until the cyclotron was developed. Van de Graaff generators are still used as accelerators to generate energetic particle and X-ray beams for nuclear research and nuclear medicine, and really cool exhibits in science museums.