4 ms·

The patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en

by paulgb 5y ago

hannibalhorn 5y ago
So the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? :-( I guess it's not just software patents that have become problematic.
- brentm 5y ago
  It's crazy that patents can be granted for 'inventions' that are nothing more than common sense. Being the first mover on hiring a patent attorney and filing the paperwork should not be rewarded. I suppose drawing a definitive line where common sense ends and invention begins is difficult so we end up with the current system.
  - YPPH 5y ago
    "Not common sense" is not the legal test for patentability. But it is in effect incorporated within the requirements that a patentable invention be novel, have an inventive step, and be non-obvious (assessed without the benefit of hindsight). The US Government could dispute the patent claim if they think the so-called invention is not an invention.
    - rkagerer 5y ago
      What stage in the process of disputing the patent's validity are they at? Are there higher judges they can appeal to for a more rational outcome?
      - YPPH 5y ago
        Patent disputes in the United States arise in federal jurisdiction. In relation to a patent infringement matters commenced in the US District Court of the relevant judicial circuit, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In theory it can then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (as happened in Google v. Oracle), if that court thinks its intervention is warranted. In relation to issues arising from the grant of a patent (not an infringement action), an appeal can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then to the Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that court thinks its intervention is warranted. I read below this is working its way through the appeals process but I'm not sure about its status.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)
  - IshKebab 5y ago
    If you look at the claims they actually patented this (I translated it into English): > For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner. I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement. The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad. So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      > We patented using stackable trays! I'd just start gesturing wildly at cafeteria trays that have been around for decades.
      - IshKebab 5y ago
        Yeah but did you put them on a cart? No!! N.. oh you did. Ok fine but did you put them on a cart near an X-ray machine? Ha!
  - patentatt 5y ago
    I’m usually one to defend patents on the grounds that the claims are far more narrow than the general idea being criticized in internet comments… that being said, claim 1 is, on its face, very broad. Like super broad. I’d be curious to check out the prosecution history and the spec on this to see if there’s anything limiting in there. Because in plain language, claim 1 is … broad.
- amalcon 5y ago
  Basically that, plus swapping the carts when more trays are needed at the inlet, plus putting advertising on everything. How "putting an ad on a visible surface" even passes the smell test is beyond me, but those claims are valid it seems...
- jmgoeke 5y ago
  Way more on the TSA’s side after reading the patent for sure. Amazed that the U.S. patent systems enables stuff like this.
JamesCoyne 5y ago
I guess this counts as novel and non-obvious then: > One embodiment of the present invention may be a system including a security scanning device through which objects may be passed, having a proximate end and a distal end, a plurality of trays, and a plurality of tray carts adapted to receive the trays, wherein the plurality of trays are provided in a first tray cart at the proximate end of the scanning device, and wherein the trays are adapted to be passed through the scanning device at the proximate end, and wherein the trays are received in a second tray cart after passing through the scanning device at the distal end of the scanning device, and wherein the second cart is adapted to be relocated to the proximate end of the scanning device.
- josaka 5y ago
  Better to look at the claims, which define the scope of rights granted. That said, the broadest claim pretty much tracks this language. I wonder if the broadest claim survived, or if the verdict was based on a narrower dependent claim.
- paulgb 5y ago
  Translation: a stack of trays on one side of the xray machine, that get passed through the xray machine to the other side, where they are put in a second stack. The second stack can be moved as a stack (presumably on wheels or something) back to the near side of the xray.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  Does it? What’s the novel part? Using two carts so you don’t have to wheel the empty one around? That doesn’t sound novel to me. I’ve don’t that at the grocery store before.

The patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en

by paulgb 5y ago

The patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en

hannibalhorn 5y ago

So the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? :-( I guess it's not just software patents that have become problematic.

brentm 5y ago
It's crazy that patents can be granted for 'inventions' that are nothing more than common sense. Being the first mover on hiring a patent attorney and filing the paperwork should not be rewarded. I suppose drawing a definitive line where common sense ends and invention begins is difficult so we end up with the current system.
- YPPH 5y ago
  "Not common sense" is not the legal test for patentability. But it is in effect incorporated within the requirements that a patentable invention be novel, have an inventive step, and be non-obvious (assessed without the benefit of hindsight). The US Government could dispute the patent claim if they think the so-called invention is not an invention.
  - rkagerer 5y ago
    What stage in the process of disputing the patent's validity are they at? Are there higher judges they can appeal to for a more rational outcome?
    - YPPH 5y ago
      Patent disputes in the United States arise in federal jurisdiction. In relation to a patent infringement matters commenced in the US District Court of the relevant judicial circuit, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In theory it can then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (as happened in Google v. Oracle), if that court thinks its intervention is warranted. In relation to issues arising from the grant of a patent (not an infringement action), an appeal can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then to the Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that court thinks its intervention is warranted. I read below this is working its way through the appeals process but I'm not sure about its status.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)
- IshKebab 5y ago
  If you look at the claims they actually patented this (I translated it into English): > For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner. I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement. The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad. So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    > We patented using stackable trays! I'd just start gesturing wildly at cafeteria trays that have been around for decades.
    - IshKebab 5y ago
      Yeah but did you put them on a cart? No!! N.. oh you did. Ok fine but did you put them on a cart near an X-ray machine? Ha!
- patentatt 5y ago
  I’m usually one to defend patents on the grounds that the claims are far more narrow than the general idea being criticized in internet comments… that being said, claim 1 is, on its face, very broad. Like super broad. I’d be curious to check out the prosecution history and the spec on this to see if there’s anything limiting in there. Because in plain language, claim 1 is … broad.
amalcon 5y ago
Basically that, plus swapping the carts when more trays are needed at the inlet, plus putting advertising on everything. How "putting an ad on a visible surface" even passes the smell test is beyond me, but those claims are valid it seems...
jmgoeke 5y ago
Way more on the TSA’s side after reading the patent for sure. Amazed that the U.S. patent systems enables stuff like this.

JamesCoyne 5y ago

I guess this counts as novel and non-obvious then: > One embodiment of the present invention may be a system including a security scanning device through which objects may be passed, having a proximate end and a distal end, a plurality of trays, and a plurality of tray carts adapted to receive the trays, wherein the plurality of trays are provided in a first tray cart at the proximate end of the scanning device, and wherein the trays are adapted to be passed through the scanning device at the proximate end, and wherein the trays are received in a second tray cart after passing through the scanning device at the distal end of the scanning device, and wherein the second cart is adapted to be relocated to the proximate end of the scanning device.

josaka 5y ago
Better to look at the claims, which define the scope of rights granted. That said, the broadest claim pretty much tracks this language. I wonder if the broadest claim survived, or if the verdict was based on a narrower dependent claim.
paulgb 5y ago
Translation: a stack of trays on one side of the xray machine, that get passed through the xray machine to the other side, where they are put in a second stack. The second stack can be moved as a stack (presumably on wheels or something) back to the near side of the xray.
ViViDboarder 5y ago
Does it? What’s the novel part? Using two carts so you don’t have to wheel the empty one around? That doesn’t sound novel to me. I’ve don’t that at the grocery store before.