A patent on a patchbay and a 500 rack? WTH?
- Thread starter pucho812
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Brian Roth
Well-known member
Amazing what gets through the USPTO.
Keep in mind, it's the Claims at the end of the patent that matter. IOW, in the verbiage I can state that my invention cures cancer and solves world hunger, but in the Claims...alas my invention only describes a new toenail clipper. <g>
You also have to watch the exact phrasing and sequencing in the Claims. Things like "and" or punctuation alters the legal meaning. I just did a quick look and will read a bit deeper. fwiw...typo in claim 7 "OB25 connector".
Bri
Keep in mind, it's the Claims at the end of the patent that matter. IOW, in the verbiage I can state that my invention cures cancer and solves world hunger, but in the Claims...alas my invention only describes a new toenail clipper. <g>
You also have to watch the exact phrasing and sequencing in the Claims. Things like "and" or punctuation alters the legal meaning. I just did a quick look and will read a bit deeper. fwiw...typo in claim 7 "OB25 connector".
Bri
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Seems to me it fails on the grounds of obviousness.
Cheers
Ian
Cheers
Ian
I have better ways to spend my time but there is not much rigor in the patent review process. Modern AI probably improves the similar language searches but patent lawyers get paid for clever phrasing. One not so funny joke, is that Patents only give you a right to sue and I know that only too well***.
The real test of a patent's veracity is surviving in court and that is a game for people with deep pockets (as in $millions).
JR
**** Peavey lost (did not win) a lawsuit against Behringer when they knocked off my patented FLS invention.
pucho812
Well-known member
That was my thought.
They made a rack that hold 8 x 500 series’s modules. Then added a tt bay on the front that has 2 x mults and 8 I/O. I don’t see what is so special or unique about that.
What seems obvious to experienced design engineers can seem magical to wet behind the ears patent examiners.
Obviousness is rather subjective.
JR
Brian Roth
Well-known member
Back in the 1970's I somehow learned I could mail a request to the USPTO with a patent number and a check for a few dollars to receive a hard copy of a patent. I began collecting patents on any device with a number on the label (or in the docs). I still have probably 1" or more of paper copies.
I also bought a few "consumer" books along the lines of "Dummies' Guide..." I still have an interest in what gets patented.
Bri
I also bought a few "consumer" books along the lines of "Dummies' Guide..." I still have an interest in what gets patented.
Bri
I don't know if they still do it, but the NYT used to showcase a handful of significant patents every Saturday. Occasionally the writer would make fun of some stupid patent in the review. Back in the 70s I drove down to Arlington, VA (from CT) and did a physical patent search myself. The patents were kept in "shoes" (long shallow wooden drawers). You could search yourself for free, or pay professionals to do a search. Now it's all available with a free computer search.
It's not rocket science and anybody can write their own patent but it may not be worth the effort if poorly executed. I got a handful of patents while working at Peavey, and the majority were glorified wall paper. A few years after I left Peavey I filed for a patent on my drum tuner. I actually wrote the patent and did the drawings myself, but I hired a real patent lawyer and paid him hundreds hourly to write/edit the claims section for me. The claims are the important part.
JR
Brian Roth
Well-known member
Re. The Claims. I caught the importance of them reading from those "DIY books" I found decades ago.
I was reading a (now forgotten) patent in the past year or so, and it was striking how the Claims absolutely narrowed the scope in the verbiage. Like I said above "cures cancer" no, it's a toenail clipper. <G>
One interesting thing in the patent listed in this thread was the total lack of References Cited by the applicant. Instead, the only two are cited by the examiner, Ms. Holder. I don't understand the numbering in those two citations (I was curious about the prior art) but whatever. Usually citations list patent numbers. It is my layman's understanding that multiple citations can mean a stronger case for the "validity" of a patent.
Bri
I was reading a (now forgotten) patent in the past year or so, and it was striking how the Claims absolutely narrowed the scope in the verbiage. Like I said above "cures cancer" no, it's a toenail clipper. <G>
One interesting thing in the patent listed in this thread was the total lack of References Cited by the applicant. Instead, the only two are cited by the examiner, Ms. Holder. I don't understand the numbering in those two citations (I was curious about the prior art) but whatever. Usually citations list patent numbers. It is my layman's understanding that multiple citations can mean a stronger case for the "validity" of a patent.
Bri
Ó Draighnáin
Well-known member
Numbers on the left are the publication numbers and on the right you have classification codes. Citations are here:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160269134A1/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170324494A1/en
I had a quick look at the public file wrapper at the USPTO, out of curiosity, to check the prosecution history. I actually went and had a look because I was curious whether the Malone was Joe Malone.
Not sure if this link will work:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16046890/ifw/docs?application=
There was a final rejection based on a couple of grounds including obviousness (obvious in light of Malone). I briefly perused the Applicant's response (which it seems was found to be persuasive, there were also claim amendments made). The basis of the argument presented was that Malone required both analogue and digital inputs and outputs (a combination of digital and analogue capacity), whilst the Applicant's invention was all analogue. The Applicant submitted something along the lines that a person skilled in the art would not have a reason to modify the Malone device to remove the digital inputs/outputs and include only analogue inputs/outputs, as in claim 1.
Examination reports and responses need to be taken in the context of the prior art, together with the dislosures of the specification and claim construction, but the above is a very rough and simplistic summary of what the public record indicates that validity turned on. The Examiner's report and Applicant's response covered more detail and I was not overly interested in reading them in any great depth.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160269134A1/en
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170324494A1/en
I had a quick look at the public file wrapper at the USPTO, out of curiosity, to check the prosecution history. I actually went and had a look because I was curious whether the Malone was Joe Malone.
Not sure if this link will work:
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16046890/ifw/docs?application=
There was a final rejection based on a couple of grounds including obviousness (obvious in light of Malone). I briefly perused the Applicant's response (which it seems was found to be persuasive, there were also claim amendments made). The basis of the argument presented was that Malone required both analogue and digital inputs and outputs (a combination of digital and analogue capacity), whilst the Applicant's invention was all analogue. The Applicant submitted something along the lines that a person skilled in the art would not have a reason to modify the Malone device to remove the digital inputs/outputs and include only analogue inputs/outputs, as in claim 1.
Examination reports and responses need to be taken in the context of the prior art, together with the dislosures of the specification and claim construction, but the above is a very rough and simplistic summary of what the public record indicates that validity turned on. The Examiner's report and Applicant's response covered more detail and I was not overly interested in reading them in any great depth.
I didn't know that file wrappers were also free and downloadable now. The last time I requested a wrapper was back in the 80s and it cost me some money. Some company in TX had patented using a balanced (differential) input on a phono preamp, and was threatening me over one of my kits claiming I infringed on his invention. I requested the wrapper and read the arguments back and forth. His wet behind the ears patent examiner had never seen a differential/balanced input before and thought that was a clever "invention".
I sent the company a copy of phono preamp out of an old tube journal that used a transformer input (so obviously differential).JR
pucho812
Well-known member
it looks like it went through or am I reading that wrong?
Ó Draighnáin
Well-known member
Yes it went through, I was just providing some additional information about the prosecution if anyone was interested.
I read the thread title and cynically thought, "that sounds like some Black Lion Audio nonsense." Then I opened the link.
pucho812
Well-known member
Nice. I am still wondering why it went through.
Ó Draighnáin
Well-known member
Thing about this forum is that there are a lot of people here that would qualify as "a person skilled in the art" (PSA).
For those gluttons for punishment, below is a (current) extract from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in relation to obviousness.
2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-07.2015]
When considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule. This section discusses supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by reliance on scientific theory and legal precedent. In keeping with the flexible approach to obviousness under KSR, as well as the requirement for explanation, Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported. See MPEP § 2144.04. So, for example, automating a manual activity, making portable, making separable, reversing or duplicating parts, or purifying an old product may form the basis of a rejection. However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand. A similar caveat applies to any obviousness analysis. Simply stating the principle (e.g., “art recognized equivalent,” “structural similarity”) without providing an explanation of its applicability to the facts of the case at hand is generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. [emphasis added]
I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning) [emphasis added].
Combining common knowledge is I guess where many here might becoming from. Lunchboxes and patchbays co-habit racks do they not?
Considering the parts I have underlined above, the idea of combining a lunch box with a patchbay might seem obvious to many of ordinary skill here, but you always have to be careful about "hindsight" when it comes to obviousness. No one had thought to combine them before. Was there an unmet need satisfied by the invention? Was developing the invention mere workshop variation or did it require inventive skill? I am sure there are plenty of opinions here about that. I am not really interested in giving an opinion, just trying to provide some information for people to consider if they are interested. It is pretty dry subject matter for many (and divisive for others).
I am also not an expert in US and the rules and regulations of the patent process are very jurisdictionally based, as are the thresholds for tests like inventive step, patentable subject matter (manner of manufacture), and the like. For example, methods of medical treatment are disallowed in some jurisdictions but allowed in others. The recent DABUS case is an interesting one as it relates to whether AI can be an inventor (so far - not).
Back to the audio widget, it seems that in the end, on the balance of probabilities, and no doubt taking into consideration precedents, principles and the like, the Examiner decided that the alleged (at the time) invention wasn't obvious in light of Malone.
For those gluttons for punishment, below is a (current) extract from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) in relation to obviousness.
2144 Supporting a Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103 [R-07.2015]
When considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule. This section discusses supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 by reliance on scientific theory and legal precedent. In keeping with the flexible approach to obviousness under KSR, as well as the requirement for explanation, Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported. See MPEP § 2144.04. So, for example, automating a manual activity, making portable, making separable, reversing or duplicating parts, or purifying an old product may form the basis of a rejection. However, such rationales should not be treated as per se rules, but rather must be explained and shown to apply to the facts at hand. A similar caveat applies to any obviousness analysis. Simply stating the principle (e.g., “art recognized equivalent,” “structural similarity”) without providing an explanation of its applicability to the facts of the case at hand is generally not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. [emphasis added]
I. RATIONALE MAY BE IN A REFERENCE, OR REASONED FROM COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN THE ART, SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES, ART-RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENTS, OR LEGAL PRECEDENT
The rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see also In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (setting forth test for implicit teachings); In re Eli Lilly & Co., 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (discussion of reliance on legal precedent); In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 1403, 7 USPQ2d 1500, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (references do not have to explicitly suggest combining teachings); Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (examiner must present convincing line of reasoning supporting rejection); and Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (reliance on logic and sound scientific reasoning) [emphasis added].
Combining common knowledge is I guess where many here might becoming from. Lunchboxes and patchbays co-habit racks do they not?
Considering the parts I have underlined above, the idea of combining a lunch box with a patchbay might seem obvious to many of ordinary skill here, but you always have to be careful about "hindsight" when it comes to obviousness. No one had thought to combine them before. Was there an unmet need satisfied by the invention? Was developing the invention mere workshop variation or did it require inventive skill? I am sure there are plenty of opinions here about that. I am not really interested in giving an opinion, just trying to provide some information for people to consider if they are interested. It is pretty dry subject matter for many (and divisive for others).
I am also not an expert in US and the rules and regulations of the patent process are very jurisdictionally based, as are the thresholds for tests like inventive step, patentable subject matter (manner of manufacture), and the like. For example, methods of medical treatment are disallowed in some jurisdictions but allowed in others. The recent DABUS case is an interesting one as it relates to whether AI can be an inventor (so far - not).
Back to the audio widget, it seems that in the end, on the balance of probabilities, and no doubt taking into consideration precedents, principles and the like, the Examiner decided that the alleged (at the time) invention wasn't obvious in light of Malone.
