On January 23, 1849, the first U.S. patent for an envelope-making machine (U.S. Patent No. 6055) was issued to Jesse K. Park and Cornelius S. Watson.
An impressive piece of machinery, it was never build commercially, but the patent model can be seen at the National Postal Museum.
In Cutsforth, Inc. v. Motive Power, Inc., [2015-1316] the Federal Circuit vacated a PTAB decision that claims 1–24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,990,018 were invalid for obviousness because the Board did not adequately describe its reasoning for finding the claims obvious.
The Board’s final written decision included petitioner’s obviousness arguments, the Board stated no independent reasons for why the claims were obvious nor did it formally adopt petitioner’s arguments as its own reasoning. The Federal Circuit said:
As we held in In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Board must articulate its reasoning for making its decision. The Board must develop and explain the basis for its findings. This enables the reviewing court to conduct meaningful review of the proceedings. Broad, conclusory statements are not enough to satisfy the Board’s obligation to provide reasoned explanation for its decision. In re Sang-Su Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343–45. In a case of obviousness, the Board must explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify the prior art references to create the claimed invention. See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d at 1371; In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Federal Circuit found that the Board made broad, conclusory statements in its analysis to determine that the claims of the ’018 patent are obvious. It said that the majority of the Board’s Final Written Decision was spent summarizing the parties’ arguments and offered only conclusory analysis of its own. This “leaves little explanation for why the Board found the claimed invention obvious.”
Merely reciting petitioner’s argument does not satisfy the Board’s responsibility to explain its own reasoning. The decision must explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious. The Board gives no such explanation. The Federal Circuit concluded:
When the Board determines that modifications and combinations of the prior art render a claimed invention obvious, the Board must fully explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would find such changes obvious.
Although the decision is non-prudential, the Board will likely provide a better explanation for the reasons for its obviousness determinations — if only by explicitly adopting petitioner’s arguments.
On January 22, 1907, Thomas A. Edison received U.S. Patent No. 841677 on an Apparatus for Grinding and Separating Fine Materials.
Recognizing the snow storms across the country this week, the patent of the day is U.S. Patent No. 5,595,343, issued to George Marhelko on January 21, 1997 in a snow coloring device:
The invention addresses the “continuing need for new and improved snow coloring device which can be used for allowing children or adults to paint snow in a variety of colors.” The availability of Mr. Marhelko’s invention notwithstanding, it is still a good idea to not eat yellow snow.
Most are familiar with a U.S. utility patent, have a seven digit number followed by a “B”:
Beginning in March 2001, applications have been published (unless the applicant requests non-publication at the time of filing. Publications are readily distinguished by the eleven digit number — four digits representing the year, and the seven digits representing a running count for the year:
Design patents have a six digit number prefaced with a “D” and followed by an “S”:
Plant patents have a five digit number prefaced with a “PP” and followed by a “P”:
Reissue patents have a five digit number prefaced with an “RE” and followed by an “E”:
In addition to patents, there are other patent related documents that patent professionals occasionally stumble upon. Defensive Publications were offered between April 1968 and May 8, 1985, and were replaced by Statutory Invention Registrations. They have up to a six digit number prefaced with a “T”:
Statutory Invention Registration is a registration of an invention pursuant to 35 USC §157, and replaced Defensive Publications. SIRs were eliminated by the AIA in 2011. An SIR has up to a four digit number, prefaced by an “H” and followed by an “H”:
On January 19, 1905, U.S. Patent 1,125,476, issued to Georges Claude on a System of Illuminating by Luminescent Tubes.
Although the inventor was from Paris, his invention developed into an American classic – the neon sign.
Finding the perfect words to describe an invention is the cross that patent attorneys have to bear. When trying to describe something that it cross-shaped, the word cruciform (see, e.g., U.S. Patent No, 8,517,327) can make the job a litte easier.
U.S. Patent No. 8,517,327 shows a cruciform or cross shaped element.
Cruciform is a fairly mainstream option, appearing in more than 7141 U.S. patents, cross-shaped appears in more than 11819 patents.
On January 18, 1977, actress Julie Newmar received U.S. Patent No. 4,003,094 on Pantyhose with Shaping Band for Cheeky Derrier Relief.
The pantyhose were sold for a while under the name “Nudemar.” Julie received an earlier patent (U.S. Patent No. 3914799) on the panty hose, and another patent (U.S. Patent No. 3935865) on a brassiere. Go Catwoman!
On January 17, 1899, U.S. Patent No. 617,778. issued to Charles D. Seeberger on an escalator.
Seeberger did not actually invent “the” escalator, as there were several earlier patents, including to Souder U.S. Patent No. 406,314 in 1889 (which was never built), to Reno U.S. Patent No. 470918 in 1892, and Wheeler U.S. Patent No. 479864 in 1892 (which was never built). Seeberger bought Wheeler’s patent, teamed with Otis, and in 1899 produced the first commercial escalator, which won the first prize at the Paris 1900 Exposition Universelle in France.
On January 16, 1900, Theophilus Van Kannel received U.S. Patent No. 641,563 on the revolving door.
Actually there had been revolving doors before, including those shown in Van Kannel’s earlier U.S. Patent Nos. 387,571, 588,620, and 588,888, but his improvement was to allow the door to be collapsed “when direct ingress or egress is desired.” For his work Van Kannel was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 2007.