{"id":101,"date":"2010-12-21T17:25:10","date_gmt":"2010-12-22T00:25:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ipmetrics.net\/blog\/?p=101"},"modified":"2016-03-21T14:56:32","modified_gmt":"2016-03-21T22:56:32","slug":"the-trouble-with-presumed-validity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/litigation\/infringement\/the-trouble-with-presumed-validity\/","title":{"rendered":"The trouble with presumed validity \u2013 An Example"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of my favorite bogus patents, which highlight the downside of presuming validity in the patenting process, is the \u201cOlson Swinging Patent.\u201d\u00a0 This patent illustrates the problem of not finding readily referenced prior art in obvious or trivial matters and, therefore, how examiners may have no recourse but issue absurd patents under 35 U.S.C. 282.<\/p>\n

Based on the application filed November 17, 2000, examiner Kien T. Nguyen issued US patent 6,368,227 under the title \u201cMethod of Swinging on a Swing<\/a>.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0(The issue date is listed as April 9, 2002, but an exemption should have been made and a date of 4\/1\/02 used)\u00a0 Crafted by the inventor\u2019s father, a patent attorney, the invention disclosed is a presumed innovative method of swinging from side-to-side, as opposed to the back-and-forth prior art.<\/p>\n

\"swing-method-150x140\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Fortunately for the myriad children \u201cside-swingers\u201d who would be infringing, the last part of the description states \u201cLicenses are available from the inventor upon request.\u201d \u00a0Unable to base a rejection on the grounds of plain common sense, the examiner cites two prior applications as references.\u00a0 Perhaps the examiner considered citing 8 mm footage of playgrounds from the fifties and sixties, but copyright and rights of publicity concerns kept those references undisclosed.\u00a0 Should this have been issued on any grounds, other than it does not infringe the laws of gravity?<\/p>\n

Fortunately, after the obvious joke was revealed, the USPTO cancelled the claims as stated in the Reexamination Certificate issued under 35 USC 307.<\/p>\n

At the time of issue, the New York Times<\/a> commented on the patent, and it remains a prime example.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One of ourfavorite bogus patents, which highlight the downside of presuming validity in the patenting process, is the Olson Side-to-Side Swinging Patent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,11,17],"tags":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2xROl-1D","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=101"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":958,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101\/revisions\/958"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ipmetrics.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}