9 ms·

Claim 1 states: "A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that a

by nh 14y ago

Claim 1 states: "A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch." Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it? Obviously, common sense should have played a huge part. But common sense by it self is not patent law. You still need evidence to support your common sense. dctoedt is right. Humans make mistake.

lurker14 14y ago
> Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it? Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the park. Look at the 11-year-old boys on the swingset.
- masterzora 14y ago
  Even ignoring the tree branch I'd be surprised if you found a single one of those 11-year-old boys employing the method described within.
  - cfinke 14y ago
    I did this all the time as a kid. If my family had owned a video camera, I'd definitely have prior art on tape.
  - talmand 14y ago
    Can I be considered prior art? Because I did that very thing as a kid over twenty years ago. In fact, I would say the method in question was common knowledge on the playground. Parents didn't like it because if the kid next to you did it then you stood the chance of bumping into each other unless you could get a matching rhythm going. I also "discovered" that if you use your feet to twist the ropes around each other as you sit in the swing you eventually can cause a spinning motion in the opposite direction by lifting your feet from ground. Is there a patent for that? Did I miss my chance? EDIT: oh wait, it seems the patent was either not granted or lapsed due to non-payment. I guess I don't have precedent for my twisting swing patent idea after all. Feel free to try it with my blessing.
    - pwg 14y ago
      > Can I be considered prior art? Short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, but only if the one single examiner handling this patent at the time had known of you, known how to contact you, and been able to obtain any information from you (and mind you, he/she likely could not have told you why he/she wanted the information). The other problem is that while you did this over twenty years ago along with the others on the playground, where did any one of you publish anything describing your alternate swing method? Because to make a rejection stick, the patent examiner has to find some publication by you or one of your playground mates from twenty years ago disclosing to the public your new swinging method. This is because the position of the courts is that an applicant deserves a patent __unless__ the us patent office can prove otherwise (and "prove" pretty much means "prove to the level of a civil trial in court"). If the system were reversed, i.e. that applicant did not deserve a patent unless they (the applicant) could prove it was sufficiently new to deserve a patent, there would be far less of these "swinging on a swing" type patents.
  - sbov 14y ago
    When you are forced to spend 30+ minutes/day 120+days/year over the course of 8+years around a set of limited devices you tend to think of a lot of interesting ways to use them because otherwise it can get boring fast.
    - masterzora 14y ago
      I got the point from others that some are apparently more creative on swings than I but I must ask who is so forced?
      - sbov 14y ago
        I wasn't forced to play with a swing, but there were a limited number of objects and we had to spend the time in the playground area during recess/lunch and couldn't leave school grounds. This was a suburban public elementary school in San Jose about 20 years ago.
        masterzora 14y ago
        Eww. I suddenly appreciate my elementary school so much more.
- will_work4tears 14y ago
  On a tree branch? Never seen one of those at a park.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    http://www.shirleyreade.com/images/ArtGallery/Children/TheTireSwingThumbnail.jpg http://www.shirleyreade.com/images/ArtGallery/Children/TheTi...
    - will_work4tears 14y ago
      Looks like a backyard, not a park.
      - 001sky 14y ago
        Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the [...] You don't need to go to the [...] Saved you some trouble. =]
        will_work4tears 14y ago
        My POINT was that parks don't have swings on branches. At least no park I've ever seen. Even you apparently had to find a random picture on the internet. They must be sooo easy to find by going outside. Edit: I think you are mistaking me for the parent comment-er. Notice I'm not him/her and my argument was only about not finding swings on branches at PARKS (because that's who I responded to).
        001sky 14y ago
        Claim 1 states: "A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch." Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it? I'm not sure what it matters if said invention is in one of various settings with repsect to prior art. Ultimately, the fact that it took 1/10 of a second to find an example of experimenters on a substantially similar context in a backyard makes this whole thing seem rather trivial. The variation of seat type or suspension technology is trivial, as are the N possible ways of generating momentum (a/k/a swinging). BTW that's a hell of a view for backyard =]
dangrossman 14y ago
You don't need prior art. > One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Uh, yes, you need prior art. How do you think obviousness is determined? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html As he said, you need proof, not just a statement "oh well everyone knew that".
  - MichaelGG 14y ago
    Am I misreading? It says: "However, this did not preclude examiners from employing common sense. More recently [...], we explained that that use of common sense does not require a “specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,” only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations." Edit: Also, what about bad ideas? Just because someone didn't demonstrate a specific method doesn't mean its non-obvious. Suppose I decided to pop an alert box on end-of-scroll for touch devices. It's a stupid idea. Do we want to grant a patent to someone just because no one demo'd such a bad idea?
    - DannyBee 14y ago
      That part is referring to motivation to combine references, or extend an existing reference. The Federal Circuit precedent on the issue used to be that you needed an explicit suggestion or motivation (in prior art) to combine two references or do further work, in order for that combination to be prior art, which was fairly ridiculous, but it was the law. See, for example, In Re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 ( http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/277/277.F3d.1338.00-1158.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/277/277.F3d.1338.00...). Some choice quotes (i'm too lazy to pull out the cites the opinion itself is making): "The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be thorough and searching." Id. It must be based on objective evidence of record. This precedent has been reinforced in myriad decisions, and cannot be dispensed with. ... "Our case law makes clear that the best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references." There is also a still open question of the skill level of a person with ordinary skill in a given art and "obvious to try". As for bad ideas, nothing in the law prevents you patenting useless or non-valuable things. We do in fact, grant plenty of patents on useless or non-valuable things. As for whether we should, I personally don't believe we should, but the argument goes that "plenty of things that people thought were useless or bad ideas at the time turned out to be quite commercially valuable".
zerostar07 14y ago
you could provide random videos of children playing randomly with their swings. At numerous points kids do get that trick to swing easily. I don't think it's hard at all.

by nh 14y ago

lurker14 14y ago

> Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it? Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the park. Look at the 11-year-old boys on the swingset.

masterzora 14y ago
Even ignoring the tree branch I'd be surprised if you found a single one of those 11-year-old boys employing the method described within.
- cfinke 14y ago
  I did this all the time as a kid. If my family had owned a video camera, I'd definitely have prior art on tape.
- talmand 14y ago
  Can I be considered prior art? Because I did that very thing as a kid over twenty years ago. In fact, I would say the method in question was common knowledge on the playground. Parents didn't like it because if the kid next to you did it then you stood the chance of bumping into each other unless you could get a matching rhythm going. I also "discovered" that if you use your feet to twist the ropes around each other as you sit in the swing you eventually can cause a spinning motion in the opposite direction by lifting your feet from ground. Is there a patent for that? Did I miss my chance? EDIT: oh wait, it seems the patent was either not granted or lapsed due to non-payment. I guess I don't have precedent for my twisting swing patent idea after all. Feel free to try it with my blessing.
  - pwg 14y ago
    > Can I be considered prior art? Short answer: yes. Longer answer: yes, but only if the one single examiner handling this patent at the time had known of you, known how to contact you, and been able to obtain any information from you (and mind you, he/she likely could not have told you why he/she wanted the information). The other problem is that while you did this over twenty years ago along with the others on the playground, where did any one of you publish anything describing your alternate swing method? Because to make a rejection stick, the patent examiner has to find some publication by you or one of your playground mates from twenty years ago disclosing to the public your new swinging method. This is because the position of the courts is that an applicant deserves a patent __unless__ the us patent office can prove otherwise (and "prove" pretty much means "prove to the level of a civil trial in court"). If the system were reversed, i.e. that applicant did not deserve a patent unless they (the applicant) could prove it was sufficiently new to deserve a patent, there would be far less of these "swinging on a swing" type patents.
- sbov 14y ago
  When you are forced to spend 30+ minutes/day 120+days/year over the course of 8+years around a set of limited devices you tend to think of a lot of interesting ways to use them because otherwise it can get boring fast.
  - masterzora 14y ago
    I got the point from others that some are apparently more creative on swings than I but I must ask who is so forced?
    - sbov 14y ago
      I wasn't forced to play with a swing, but there were a limited number of objects and we had to spend the time in the playground area during recess/lunch and couldn't leave school grounds. This was a suburban public elementary school in San Jose about 20 years ago.
      - masterzora 14y ago
        Eww. I suddenly appreciate my elementary school so much more.
will_work4tears 14y ago
On a tree branch? Never seen one of those at a park.
- 001sky 14y ago
  http://www.shirleyreade.com/images/ArtGallery/Children/TheTireSwingThumbnail.jpg http://www.shirleyreade.com/images/ArtGallery/Children/TheTi...
  - will_work4tears 14y ago
    Looks like a backyard, not a park.
    - 001sky 14y ago
      Go out side. Turn left. Walk to the [...] You don't need to go to the [...] Saved you some trouble. =]
      - will_work4tears 14y ago
        My POINT was that parks don't have swings on branches. At least no park I've ever seen. Even you apparently had to find a random picture on the internet. They must be sooo easy to find by going outside. Edit: I think you are mistaking me for the parent comment-er. Notice I'm not him/her and my argument was only about not finding swings on branches at PARKS (because that's who I responded to).
        001sky 14y ago
        Claim 1 states: "A method of swinging on a swing, the method comprising the steps of: a) suspending a seat for supporting a user between only two chains that are hung from a tree branch; b) positioning a user on the seat so that the user is facing a direction perpendicular to the tree branch; c) having the user pull alternately on one chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward one side, and then on the other chain to induce movement of the user and the swing toward the other side; and d) repeating step c) to create side-to-side swinging motion, relative to the user, that is parallel to the tree branch." Now go find prior art for this where it shows steps a, b, c, d. Not easy anymore is it? I'm not sure what it matters if said invention is in one of various settings with repsect to prior art. Ultimately, the fact that it took 1/10 of a second to find an example of experimenters on a substantially similar context in a backyard makes this whole thing seem rather trivial. The variation of seat type or suspension technology is trivial, as are the N possible ways of generating momentum (a/k/a swinging). BTW that's a hell of a view for backyard =]

dangrossman 14y ago

You don't need prior art. > One of the main requirements of patentability is that the invention being patented is not obvious, meaning that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism.

DannyBee 14y ago
Uh, yes, you need prior art. How do you think obviousness is determined? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html As he said, you need proof, not just a statement "oh well everyone knew that".
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Am I misreading? It says: "However, this did not preclude examiners from employing common sense. More recently [...], we explained that that use of common sense does not require a “specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference,” only a reasoned explanation that avoids conclusory generalizations." Edit: Also, what about bad ideas? Just because someone didn't demonstrate a specific method doesn't mean its non-obvious. Suppose I decided to pop an alert box on end-of-scroll for touch devices. It's a stupid idea. Do we want to grant a patent to someone just because no one demo'd such a bad idea?
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    That part is referring to motivation to combine references, or extend an existing reference. The Federal Circuit precedent on the issue used to be that you needed an explicit suggestion or motivation (in prior art) to combine two references or do further work, in order for that combination to be prior art, which was fairly ridiculous, but it was the law. See, for example, In Re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338 ( http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/277/277.F3d.1338.00-1158.html http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/277/277.F3d.1338.00...). Some choice quotes (i'm too lazy to pull out the cites the opinion itself is making): "The factual inquiry whether to combine references must be thorough and searching." Id. It must be based on objective evidence of record. This precedent has been reinforced in myriad decisions, and cannot be dispensed with. ... "Our case law makes clear that the best defense against the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or motivation to combine prior art references." There is also a still open question of the skill level of a person with ordinary skill in a given art and "obvious to try". As for bad ideas, nothing in the law prevents you patenting useless or non-valuable things. We do in fact, grant plenty of patents on useless or non-valuable things. As for whether we should, I personally don't believe we should, but the argument goes that "plenty of things that people thought were useless or bad ideas at the time turned out to be quite commercially valuable".

zerostar07 14y ago

you could provide random videos of children playing randomly with their swings. At numerous points kids do get that trick to swing easily. I don't think it's hard at all.