Kids' Invention Website from USPTO

The USPTO and The National Inventor's Hall of Fame worked together to develop a website to encourage kids to invent and learn about the patent process. The website has an area where kids (or patent librarians) can go through a mock patent prosecution.

Sometimes patent searching can be so complicated that it's nice to have an easy, interactive way to reinforce the concepts behind the process.

For more kid-oriented patent stuff, check out the USPTO's kids' website here.

**Update, 4/1**

I just came across fellow patent librarian/blogger Michael White's post about an invention contest for kids sponsored by Wham-O. The winner gets $2000, but I'd like to think the real motivation should be the prospect of designing the next Frisbee or Hula Hoop.

SF Patent Auction Kind of a Big Deal

A San Francisco inventor's patent for "Global sideband service distributed computing method," (US Patent No. 6,418,642) is going up for auction next month and could potentially cause a big stir.

I'm going to admit from the outset that, technologically speaking, I have no idea what this patent is about. (If you're interested in the technical bits, I suggest you read the patent, which is required by definition to clearly explain the process in such a way that any person with reasonable knowledge in the field could understand it.)

What I do understand is controversy, and as a coworker at SFPL pointed out to me yesterday, this one has the Fark message boards pretty active.

As Reg Developer reports, the patent itself is for a computing process, commonly known as AJAX, by which data requests are managed by a server. The patent suggests that web applications such as Gmail, Google Maps, and Napster, may potentially infringe.

Who knows what comes next? One possibility is that a major company, say Google, will try to buy the patent and go after others who are already using the technology. It's certainly probable that this will end up in court. Companies that are already using this technology may argue that the technology is too obvious and the patent won't be enforceable. Who knows?

The auction takes place at the Ritz Carlton in SF on April 2nd. I'll keep my eyes peeled.

The Inventor's Notebook

It's fun to imagine the process of invention as something feverish and exciting, where inventors behave like Doc Brown from "Back to the Future." You know the routine: crazy-haired geniuses running around a cluttered lab, making calculations on the fly and stumbling upon life-changing discoveries.

The boring reality is that the best invention process is one that is controlled, systematic, and, particularly, very well-documented. As in every step of the way. As in good labels, diagrams, dates on everything, and careful technical prose describing the specifications of the invention, its usefulness, and everything else about it. As in finding two people (preferably not close relatives) who are not only willing to sign your notebook saying they witnessed the notes on that date, but who also understand the invention.

Why? Because if an invention has any value on the market, there's a pretty good chance someone will challenge the inventor to prove he or she invented it first. There are a few reasons that this may happen. A common reason is that two or more people often apply for similar patents around the same time. There may also be confusion about which member of a group working on a project invented what. Heck, somebody might even steal an idea and claim it as their own. In any event, it's always advisable to have a log of your invention development just in case.

It's also worth noting that if an inventor deducts costs associated with developing an invention for tax purposes, the inventor's notebook would be a good record in the case of an audit.

For more information about the inventor's notebook, check out Fred Grissom and David Pressman's The Inventor's Notebook: A 'Patent it Yourself Companion, available electronically through the library. (Library card required.)

Invention Marketing Scams

In a perfect world, the process of inventing would go something like this:

1. Inventor sees potential for technological improvement
2. Inventor develops useful device to achieve this potential
3. Inventor patents device
4. Inventor or company markets device

In reality there is an unfortunate step 2(b) that thousands of inventors get stuck in every year.

Invention promotion, marketing, and licensing firms are enough of a problem today that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has a process for publishing complaints against those that prey on inventors.

The scam is pretty simple: the company runs advertisements calling for inventors to submit their ideas to be evaluated for patentability. There may be an offer for a “Free Kit” or something along those lines. Representatives of the company give very enthusiastic evaluations and guarantee a successful patent grant. For this, they charge a nominal fee.

Then big fees begin, usually under the guise of marketing or trying to find a manufacturer for the invention. Inventors who spend thousands of dollars (or sign over a large percentage of their invention) for these services often discover that the marketing of their invention consists of nothing more than a tiny display at a trade show or a few form letters sent to manufacturers.

Federal law (35 USC 297) now requires such companies to disclose, in writing, the following information (from a USPTO brochure linked below):

"Get answers to these questions in writing from any promotion, marketing or licensing company wanting to help you. Helpful hints are given in the brackets.

1. Total number of inventions evaluated for commercial potential in the past five years by the Company. How many of those evaluations were positive, accepted by the Company. How many were negative, rejected by the Company.
2. Total number of customers, known by the Company, who have received a net financial profit as a direct result of the Company’s promotion services. What is the Company's success rate over the past five years [that is, the number of who made more money from their invention than they paid].
3. Names and addresses of all previous invention promotion companies with which the Company or its officers have collectively or individually been affiliated in the previous 10 years and what other names has the Company used in this or other states.
4. Total number of customers, known by the Company, to have received license agreements for their inventions as a direct result of the Company’s services. [lf the success rate is low, say less than 5%, then think about going elsewhere].
5. How many customers have contracted with the Company for promotional services in the past 5 years; excluding those who have purchased trade show services research, advertising or other non-marketing service: and excluding those who have defaulted on payment to the Company.
6. Is there an up-front fee and, if so, how much is it and what are you getting for it? How much will the complete process cost from submission of my invention to obtaining a patent and a licensing agreement? [Reputable firms have relatively small, upfront or other fees because they make their real money from successful royalty arrangements for the inventions they accept].
7. Has the Company ever been investigated by or been in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, any consumer protection agency or Attorney General's Office and if so, when and where?
8. Who selects and pays for the patent attorney or agent to do the patent search, patentability opinion and patent application preparation? [You should be able to select your own, because the attorney or agent represents you, not the Company].
9. Provide you with the names, addresses and phone numbers of five clients of the Company in your geographical area and copies of all contracts and forms to review [Do this before signing or paying any money].
10. Does the Company provide a written opinion of the "marketability" (that is, potential success) of your invention?"

Here's a copy of that brochure, also available in paper at the Patent and Trademark Center. (PDF)

Beware companies that make money off of inventors rather than inventions.

--
For more information:

Pressman, David. "Patent it Yourself." Berkeley: Nolo Press, 2006. Click here for electronic version. (Library card required)

Wouldn't it be nice...

...if the remaining founders of the Beach Boys could share their intellectual property? According to the New York Times, that may soon be the case as they have reportedly settled a series of litigation over alleged misuse of the Beach Boys name.

The Beach Boys trademark is registered to Brother Records, Inc., the group's corporate entity. The dispute was reportedly about the use of the name by Al Jardin, a founder of the group and a shareholder in Brother Records, Inc.

For most musicians, copyright is the only intellectual property issue they'll ever have to deal with. The Beach Boys brand, however, is so recognizable that it can command some large sums, in this case in the millions.

The Beach Boys saga is a fascinating one that goes way beyond intellectual property. You can read all about it at SFPL.

Patent Search Tip #1 -- The Responsible Use of Google Patent Search

Google Patent Search??

I was pretty excited about this, too. But be careful, it's not the miracle website that will make patent searching easy. It is, however, a useful tool to have in your patent searching arsenal.

Here's my take on Google Patent Search:


The goods:

• Google Patent features excellent images of full patents. If you've ever tried to view a complete patent in the USPTO database, you're familiar with their Alternatiff software, the clunky interface, and images that sometimes never appear. If you have a patent number or an inventor, this is a great way to retrieve a clear PDF copy of the original patent.
• Advanced search features are easy to use. Or at least easier than the advanced search at the UPSTO database. One caveat, though: searching is not this tool's strong suit; easier doesn't mean as accurate as class/subclass searching. But if you have an inventor, an assignee, the complete title, or a patent number, Google can retrieve it without your having to resort to command line searching.
• Citations and references are linked. This is a good way to explore a particular area of technology. You pull up a patent. The patents cited by that patent are listed. The later patents that cite that patent are listed. Everything is a click away.

The not-so-goods:

• Class searching doesn't add up with USPTO database. And there's no subclass field, meaning you can bring up everything in a class (usually hundreds or thousands of patents) without narrowing it to subclass. This sort of kills its usefulness as a search tool. And when you do try to view a class, the numbers generally don't match those that come up in the USPTO database. Patent examiners, private attorneys, and agents use the USPTO database, not Google, so even one omission in the Google search results (there are usually many more) makes it unreliable.
  
• Keyword searching is not the way to go with patents. Yet keyword searching is the primary means of access with Google. The vocabulary of patent professionals is highly technical; that's why the Index to U.S. Patent Classification is such a valuable tool. You might not know that a Koosh Ball is actually a "Generally Spherical Object with Floppy Filaments to Promote Sure Capture." But you might figure it's a ball, an amusement device, a toy, etc., and the Index will get you from those concepts to the right patent eventually. Google keyword searching will not.

Don't think that I dislike Google Patent Search. In fact, I use it every day. Here's my patent search routine:

1. Use the index to find a class.
   
2. Go to the Class Schedule and look up subclasses.
3. Click on the "P" in the Schedule to get a list of patents.
4. Open Google Patents in a new browser window.
   
5. Find a patent title that looks good, highlight the number, copy it and paste it into the Google Patents search box.

This will retrieve a copy of the patent, generally as the first result. From there, I download or read a PDF or HTML version of the patent, look at the drawings, and usually go back to the list of patents at the USPTO site and repeat step 5 until I find what I'm looking for.

Beware the easy way out. In patent searching, the recommended tools are still those created by the USPTO that rely on class and subclass searching: CASSIS disks, PubWest, and the USPTO website, all of which are available for anyone here at the Patent and Trademark Center.

SF Trademark #2 -- Steam Beer

Marks are used to represent goods or services in a certain market. It's no surprise, then, that a company in a port city (San Francisco, of course) would use a maritime figure to represent its product.

Anchor Brewing registered this symbol in 1984, claiming to have used it in commerce since 1971. The name of their most popular product, "Steam Beer," was also registered in the early 80's, though they claim on their website to have used it in commerce for decades:

Anchor Steam derives its unusual name from the 19th century when "steam" seems to have been a nickname for beer brewed on the West Coast of America under primitive conditions and without ice. The brewing methods of those days are a mystery and, although there are many theories, no one can say with certainty why the word "steam" came to be associated with beer. For many decades Anchor alone has used this quaint name for its unique beer. In modern times, "Steam" has become a trademark of Anchor Brewing.

USPTO Chat Transcript

I just came across a transcript of an online question and answer session during which Patent and Trademark Office staff fielded questions from the public. They posted the questions that were general enough to be of interest to more than one person here.

The questions were the same sorts of questions we get in the library every day. For instance:

Birdy:
Can I get a design patent for a fashion design
USPTO Expert3: (Feb 28, 2008 2:28:34 PM)
Birdy, A fashion design may receive a design patent. The appearance of the entire article, like a dress, can be patented, or even just a portion of the article, such as a collar, can be patented. Your claim would consist of clear ink drawings of your design with any unclaimed portions shown in broken lines.

It's not always clear what type of protection applies to certain types of intellectual property. Clothes, for instance, can be an artistic expression, which could translate to copyright. According to the UPSTO staff person on the receiving end of this Q and A, though, clothes designs can be protected by a design patent (The issue has much more nuance than I can give justice in this space. Copyright protection, which is generally the IP protection that applies to art, lasts much longer than patent protection, which could make it much more valuable. Read a report from the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property here.)

Another favorite:

Comatson: (Feb 28, 2008 3:02:34 PM)
I am a new inventor, How do I start the patent process, should I sign with a "patent agency" and if so, how do I know that my idea is protected. Also, If I use a google search for patents, is that good enough?
USPTO Expert: (Feb 28, 2008 3:02:37 PM)
The Office strongly suggests you review information we have that all inventors should be aware of before doing business with any invention promotion firm, go to http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/index.htm. As far as moving forward get information from our Office about the patent process, consider the public library for self help books or look for a local inventors group at www.uiausa.org Also visit a PTDL for assistance with searching, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/ptdl/index.html

Notice the very gentle steering away from Google Patent Search towards the library, books, and inventors' groups. "USPTO Expert" is ok in my book.

There is another chat session scheduled for April 15th. To find information about that and many more resources please visit the UPSTO's Inventors Resources and Information site.

SF Trademark #1 -- Levi's

Before Levi's jeans were an international icon, they were just one part of a product line that mainly consisted of wholesale fabrics. Initially jeans were work clothes for laborers and cowboys; it wasn't until the 1960's that they became, as Britannica puts it, "internationally a characteristic part of clothing for both men and women."

The Levi's trademark shown above, no. 0250265, was registered in 1927 for overalls and blue jeans. Registration of the name and look of the mark continues today, as does the company's association with San Francisco, where its headquarters are located.

Click here for the Britannica article on blue jeans. (Library card required.)
Click here for the full text of the trademark registration.

SF Patent #3 -- The Murphy Bed

Apparently tiny apartments are not a new problem in San Francisco.

William Murphy and his wife moved to San Francisco right around 1900 and found their one-room apartment offered insufficient space for entertaining.

Murphy was granted U.S. Patent number 1518346 in 1919 for his "Folding Bed," marketed as the Murphy Bed beginning in 1925.


Information Source: van Dulken, Stephen. American Inventions: A History of Curious, Extraordinary, & Just Plain Useful Patents. Washington Square; New York University Press, 2004. p95
Available at SFPL.

The Guitar Hero Patent Scandal

Reuters (and a couple dozen other news sources) reports here that Gibson Guitar is suing Activision, claiming that Activision's popular Guitar Hero video game infringes Gibson's 1999 patent number 5990405 for "System and Method for Generating and Controlling a Simulated Music Concert."

See Gibson's patent here.

See the Guitar Hero patent here.

This is a good illustration of how patents are enforced. The USPTO does not take any action to enforce patents once they are granted. It's up to a patent holder to pursue perceived infringement through courts, like Gibson is doing right now.

Also, if you take a look at the patents, you can see that infringement isn't always cut and dry. Do you think Gibson has a good case?

SF Patent #2 -- Television

For those who thought "Nash Bridges" was San Francisco's primary contribution to television, I present Philo Taylor Farnsworth.

While still a teenager in rural Utah, Farnsworth came up with a method for projecting pictures using electricity but he lacked the resources to develop it. After he graduated high school, he attended Brigham Young University and found the necessary material support to develop his ideas.

He set up a laboratory in San Francisco and, at the age of 21, was granted U.S. Patent number 2168768 for the Farnsworth Television Method, which was introduced to the world as television in 1928.

For more information about Farnsworth, check out Biography Resource Center (library card required). Time Magazine also featured him in the "Time 100."

SF Patent (pending) #1 - Spray-on Pancakes

There are three conditions an invention must meet before the USPTO will grant its inventor a patent. It must be 1) Original, 2) Useful, and 3) Not obivious to a person with average knowledge in a given field.

This sprayable pancake batter has been all over the news lately, including a front page piece in the Chronicle. Sean O'Conner and Nate Steck haven't been awarded a patent yet (read their full application here), but they've began marketing Batter Blaster from their South of Market Office and have sold, according to the Chronicle, over 400,000 cans.

My opinion? Useful -- absolutely. Obvious? I guess not, because nobody's marketed it before. As for originality, though, I don't know. I hear echoes of Cheez Whiz.

IP in the News

BBC News printed a feature today about a counterfeit Ferrari made in Thailand.

Patent Circuit Court to Appear Locally

If you were planning a trip to Washington, D.C. to watch the Patent Court of Appeals in action, you can save your money.

CNET's BLIP blog reported that the Court is taking their act on the road, appearing in San Francisco and San Jose courts and Stanford and Santa Clara law schools in November.

Click here for the official press release.

Intellectual Property Bill Passes House Subcommittee

Variety reported last week that the House IP Subcommittee passed the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act . The bill calls for expanding anitpiracy efforts with the creation of an Executive coordinator of antipiracy efforts, offering grant money to states, and stiffer fines for willful intellectual property offenses.

This is, of course, only one step on a bill's journey to becoming a law. Click here for a good explanation of the legislative process.

A good primer on IP law is "Patent, Copyright, and Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference," by Rich Stim, published by Nolo. Click here for an electronic version of the 2006 edition (library card required). We also have the 2007 edition in paper at the Government Information Center Reference Desk.

Steve Perlman on Innovation in the Bay Area (ok, in Silicon Valley)

While high tech inventions may not have quite the romantic appeal of cable car pulleys, it's clear that computer technology is helping keep the spirit of invention alive and well in the Bay Area. Steve Perlman, who so far has 72 patents himself, talks about Bay Area technology innovations today in the San Jose Mercury News.

This is the line that caught my eye:

"There's kind of, if you will, less technology creativity (and) more about how to use technology in a clever way to create a new business model."

Patents can apply to business models: take a look at Business Source Premiere (available through the library) to see what the experts are saying.

Assuming Perlman's observation is accurate, the intellectual property market in the Bay Area is evolving yet again.