FAQ  •   Login  •   Register  •   Subscribe 

Welcome to the Forum for InventorSpot.com, the most popular invention related website in the world. Read our welcome message.

Skip to content

Moderators: Scrupulous, Roger Brown, citizen


Re: Utility Apps can be continued as Design Apps

Postby JoeWaisman » Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:08 pm

User avatar
JoeWaisman
Green Belt
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:10 pm
For my own benefit, when I come back and read this thread:

I lost the link but it appears that having actual reduction to practice makes obtaining a patent easier in some cases. For example a perpetual motion machine would be denied as a matter of common sense. If someone had an actual PMM though, and it had been vetted by skilled observers its utility would become acceptable. The implication was also that this would assist with the disclosure and educational value a patent provides.
___________________________________________
"The horse is here to stay but the automobile is only a novelty, a fad."
Fun links:
*http://www.scribd.com/doc/441708/Bad-Predictions-About-Great-Inventions

Re: Utility Apps can be continued as Design Apps

Postby Levi Porter » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:42 pm

User avatar
Levi Porter
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:37 am
This may not be the best place to say thanks, forgive me, I am busier than usual lately.

Anyway, I would like to thank ISPOT. It is an awesome place to learn and obtain valuable information that can be otherwise time consuming, expensive, or very challenging.

I would also like to thank Scrupulous. The volume of quality information he has given is irreplaceable.

Re: Utility Apps can be continued as Design Apps

Postby Scrupulous » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:35 pm

User avatar
Scrupulous
Black Belt
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: United States
JoeWaisman wrote:For my own benefit, when I come back and read this thread:

I lost the link but it appears that having actual reduction to practice makes obtaining a patent easier in some cases. For example a perpetual motion machine would be denied as a matter of common sense. If someone had an actual PMM though, and it had been vetted by skilled observers its utility would become acceptable. The implication was also that this would assist with the disclosure and educational value a patent provides.


You'd think!

The key seems to be in avoiding terms like "over-unity" and "perpetual motion" and "government conspiracy" and "the aliens are winning" and...

http://www.google.com/patents/about?id= ... dq=3890548

Re: Utility Apps can be continued as Design Apps

Postby Scrupulous » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:37 pm

User avatar
Scrupulous
Black Belt
 
Posts: 2387
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:32 pm
Location: United States
Levi Porter wrote:This may not be the best place to say thanks, forgive me, I am busier than usual lately.

Anyway, I would like to thank ISPOT. It is an awesome place to learn and obtain valuable information that can be otherwise time consuming, expensive, or very challenging.

I would also like to thank Scrupulous. The volume of quality information he has given is irreplaceable.


For my part, I say yer welcome.
Previous

cron