Slashdot Mirror

from the USPTO:

an invention cannot be patented if: *SNIP* "(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the application for patent in the United States . . ."

All the other posters in the thread seem not to have read the application :

"Methods and devices for creating and transferring custom emoticons allow a user to adopt an arbitrary image as an emoticon, which can then be represented by a character sequence in real-time communication. In one implementation, custom emoticons can be included in a message and transmitted to a receiver in the message. In another implementation, character sequences representing the custom emoticons can be transmitted in the message instead of the custom emoticons in order to preserve performance of text messaging. At the receiving end, the character sequences are replaced by their corresponding custom emoticons, which can be retrieved locally if they have been previously received, or can be retrieved from the sender in a separate communication from the text message if they have not been previously received."

The patent is not for smilies.

It is for having both ends having pre-set images displayed for certain character sequences in text mesages, be they :-) or pwn3df46607

Now I realize that you guys may not have read them lately and I don't know how good of a source that they are but I am posting patents that were updated earlier this year. That is talk about what is commonly referred to as Cube Mapping.

If my understanding of what they are doing is correct then it should require less processing power, which in turn would require less Physical Power to produce the same quality or higher graphics with less processing power.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.htm%252Bl&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=nin tendo&s2=ibm&OS=nintendo+AND+ibm&RS=(nintendo+AND+ ibm

Yes this is all old news but Nintendo has refiled this patent as of 04 meaning that even though they use images from the Gamecube that this is going to be used for the revolution or maybe a future developed console.

They also filed the Bump Map Patent again hopefully this will also remove some of the requirements on the processor and GPU but until the systems are all released we will have to sit back and wait to see how it all plays out.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=21&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=nintendo .AS.&OS=AN/nintendo&RS=AN/nintendo /\ Bump Map Patent

Now I realize that you guys may not have read them lately and I don't know how good of a source that they are but I am posting patents that were updated earlier this year. That is talk about what is commonly referred to as Cube Mapping.

If my understanding of what they are doing is correct then it should require less processing power, which in turn would require less Physical Power to produce the same quality or higher graphics with less processing power.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.htm%252Bl&r=24&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=nin tendo&s2=ibm&OS=nintendo+AND+ibm&RS=(nintendo+AND+ ibm

Yes this is all old news but Nintendo has refiled this patent as of 04 meaning that even though they use images from the Gamecube that this is going to be used for the revolution or maybe a future developed console.

They also filed the Bump Map Patent again hopefully this will also remove some of the requirements on the processor and GPU but until the systems are all released we will have to sit back and wait to see how it all plays out.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=21&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=nintendo .AS.&OS=AN/nintendo&RS=AN/nintendo /\ Bump Map Patent

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/amazon_p atent_suit/

Patent 5715399 is trivial. Its novelty is suspect, being a copy of what the CC companies' own cash register CC terminals usually do to obscure card numbers on recipts. Saying the Intenet makes it novel again is crap.

Concerning the infamous Internet Shopping Cart Patent 6629079, maybe they were the first to patent it, but I challenge the Slashdot crowd to hit the wayback machine for some pre-April-2003 perl CGI that implemented shopping carts. I have a vauge recollection of that showing up LONG before Amazon brought their stale beer to the party.

Patent 6029141 seems trivial to me, essentially the same thing as selling your customer purchase records to a business partner, and also selling them advertisement and reselling for them. Publisher's Clearing House anyone? Amazon is basically saying "this one works on the Internet" as in "this one goes to eleven." I can call Bullshit, but the legal scholars on the bench are pretty behind in the technology. If they don't really understand it, whoever explains it to them for the first time is automatically the first mover.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/amazon_p atent_suit/

Patent 5715399 is trivial. Its novelty is suspect, being a copy of what the CC companies' own cash register CC terminals usually do to obscure card numbers on recipts. Saying the Intenet makes it novel again is crap.

Concerning the infamous Internet Shopping Cart Patent 6629079, maybe they were the first to patent it, but I challenge the Slashdot crowd to hit the wayback machine for some pre-April-2003 perl CGI that implemented shopping carts. I have a vauge recollection of that showing up LONG before Amazon brought their stale beer to the party.

Patent 6029141 seems trivial to me, essentially the same thing as selling your customer purchase records to a business partner, and also selling them advertisement and reselling for them. Publisher's Clearing House anyone? Amazon is basically saying "this one works on the Internet" as in "this one goes to eleven." I can call Bullshit, but the legal scholars on the bench are pretty behind in the technology. If they don't really understand it, whoever explains it to them for the first time is automatically the first mover.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/18/amazon_p atent_suit/

Patent 5715399 is trivial. Its novelty is suspect, being a copy of what the CC companies' own cash register CC terminals usually do to obscure card numbers on recipts. Saying the Intenet makes it novel again is crap.

Concerning the infamous Internet Shopping Cart Patent 6629079, maybe they were the first to patent it, but I challenge the Slashdot crowd to hit the wayback machine for some pre-April-2003 perl CGI that implemented shopping carts. I have a vauge recollection of that showing up LONG before Amazon brought their stale beer to the party.

Patent 6029141 seems trivial to me, essentially the same thing as selling your customer purchase records to a business partner, and also selling them advertisement and reselling for them. Publisher's Clearing House anyone? Amazon is basically saying "this one works on the Internet" as in "this one goes to eleven." I can call Bullshit, but the legal scholars on the bench are pretty behind in the technology. If they don't really understand it, whoever explains it to them for the first time is automatically the first mover.

According to documents filed in the case by Preston Gates & Ellis (yep, Bill G's dad!), Amazon is joined in the lawsuit by A9.com in demanding injunctive relief and unspecified triple damages for "irreparable injury and damages" as a result of Cendant's infringement of the following patents:

Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network (5,715,399), which is held by Bezos and covers displaying "the last N digits of the credit card number, where N is an integer,"

Internet-based customer referral system (6,029,141), which is also held by Bezos and covers Amazon's affiliate program,

Electronic commerce using multiple roles (6,629,079), which covers the use of "multiple electronic shopping carts," and

Navigating within a body of data using one of a number of alternative browse graphs (6,625,609), which describes how one might sell "a Pez candy dispenser in the shape of the Marvin the Martian."

BTW, Bezos' '399 patent was the subject of a curious 2001 Prior Art contest run by the Bezos-funded BountyQuest - ties to Bezos were never disclosed and the contest results were never revealed.

According to documents filed in the case by Preston Gates & Ellis (yep, Bill G's dad!), Amazon is joined in the lawsuit by A9.com in demanding injunctive relief and unspecified triple damages for "irreparable injury and damages" as a result of Cendant's infringement of the following patents:

Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network (5,715,399), which is held by Bezos and covers displaying "the last N digits of the credit card number, where N is an integer,"

Internet-based customer referral system (6,029,141), which is also held by Bezos and covers Amazon's affiliate program,

Electronic commerce using multiple roles (6,629,079), which covers the use of "multiple electronic shopping carts," and

Navigating within a body of data using one of a number of alternative browse graphs (6,625,609), which describes how one might sell "a Pez candy dispenser in the shape of the Marvin the Martian."

BTW, Bezos' '399 patent was the subject of a curious 2001 Prior Art contest run by the Bezos-funded BountyQuest - ties to Bezos were never disclosed and the contest results were never revealed.

According to documents filed in the case by Preston Gates & Ellis (yep, Bill G's dad!), Amazon is joined in the lawsuit by A9.com in demanding injunctive relief and unspecified triple damages for "irreparable injury and damages" as a result of Cendant's infringement of the following patents:

Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network (5,715,399), which is held by Bezos and covers displaying "the last N digits of the credit card number, where N is an integer,"

Internet-based customer referral system (6,029,141), which is also held by Bezos and covers Amazon's affiliate program,

Electronic commerce using multiple roles (6,629,079), which covers the use of "multiple electronic shopping carts," and

Navigating within a body of data using one of a number of alternative browse graphs (6,625,609), which describes how one might sell "a Pez candy dispenser in the shape of the Marvin the Martian."

BTW, Bezos' '399 patent was the subject of a curious 2001 Prior Art contest run by the Bezos-funded BountyQuest - ties to Bezos were never disclosed and the contest results were never revealed.

According to documents filed in the case by Preston Gates & Ellis (yep, Bill G's dad!), Amazon is joined in the lawsuit by A9.com in demanding injunctive relief and unspecified triple damages for "irreparable injury and damages" as a result of Cendant's infringement of the following patents:

Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network (5,715,399), which is held by Bezos and covers displaying "the last N digits of the credit card number, where N is an integer,"

Internet-based customer referral system (6,029,141), which is also held by Bezos and covers Amazon's affiliate program,

Electronic commerce using multiple roles (6,629,079), which covers the use of "multiple electronic shopping carts," and

Navigating within a body of data using one of a number of alternative browse graphs (6,625,609), which describes how one might sell "a Pez candy dispenser in the shape of the Marvin the Martian."

BTW, Bezos' '399 patent was the subject of a curious 2001 Prior Art contest run by the Bezos-funded BountyQuest - ties to Bezos were never disclosed and the contest results were never revealed.

I think this is one of the patents refered to in the article - it seems a pretty obvious "invention" to me - gotta wonder about some of these patents. ------ Secure method and system for communicating a list of credit card numbers over a non-secure network Abstract A method and system for securely indicating to a customer one or more credit card numbers that a merchant has on file for the customer when communicating with the customer over a non-secure network. The merchant sends a message to the customer that contains only a portion of each of the credit card numbers that are on file with the merchant. The message may also contain a notation explaining which portion of each of the credit card numbers has been extracted. A computer (38) retrieves the credit card numbers on file for the customer in a database (40), constructs the message, and transits the message to a customer location (10) over the Internet network (30) or other non-secure network. The customer can then confirm in a return message that a specific one of the credit card numbers on file with the merchant should be used in charging a transaction. Since only a portion of the credit card number(s) are included in any message transmitted, a third party cannot discover the customer's complete credit card number(s). http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5715399.WKU.&OS=PN/5715399&RS=PN/ 5715399

One additional data point - there were 36 statutory invention registrations in 2003.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=9&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=nintendo& OS=nintendo&RS=nintendo/ And it's from a trustable(ish) source: The US Patent and Trademark Office, which got it from Nintendo itself. No more need to create random videos or pics....

There are a number of patents under the mp3 licensing group http://www.mp3licensing.com/patents/index.html. Some look like they might expire soon, I'd welcome corrections if I am wrong.

The essential MP3 patent is listed on that page as "internal no. P3912605", which corresponds to US Patent 5,579,430. That one was filed in April 1990 and should expire in April 2010.

12 years (2017)?

You are muddled on cause on effect. The US patent office has developed a false liberality which is unjust. The "tear shedder" is absolutely right when he says: "More often than not, patents give the discoverer/holder an unfair advantage that gives them the power to gouge the public and make a killing."

Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)

Regarding the Slashdot article we are discussing, here's the first Iridian patent from the eighties: Iris patent
It covers AUTOMATION of an existing manual process - iris recognition - that opthalmologists and common people do day in and day out. (Note how it says _multiple_ pictures may be used of the iris driven to different dilations). Even you have probably done this - remember the Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic, and her followup picture decades later, taken veiled, showing only her eyes? How can a patent on all possible way to automate this process be granted? See end of the patent statement which says:
Although the present invention has been described in connection with a plurality of preferred embodiments thereof, many other variations and modifications will now become apparent to those skilled in the art. It is preferred, therefore, that the present invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims.

Now see this more recent patent granted to Iridian Handheld iris imaging apparatus and method . It references their first patent, and now covers handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport. Ironically, it was issued on 9/11.

Now see the end of this patent:
Although illustrated and described herein with reference to certain specific embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention is not limited to the embodiments specifically disclosed herein. Those skilled in the art also will appreciate that many other variations of the specific embodiments described herein are intended to be within the scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.

So industry is unfairly restrained a few decades more by this patent -- and this will hold back God knows how many real improvements to security. Happy now?

> To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils
> the name of a great entrepreneur.
He probably deserved much of it, but to say he deserved "all the money" he got is foolish, given the company he led was convicted and forced to compensate others in multiple cases, and Gates was personally fined in the anti-trust lawsuit.

> I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
No. I support Bush. Your opinion gives him a bad name.

You are muddled on cause on effect. The US patent office has developed a false liberality which is unjust. The "tear shedder" is absolutely right when he says: "More often than not, patents give the discoverer/holder an unfair advantage that gives them the power to gouge the public and make a killing."

Take the Eolas plug-in patent. Does your browser support plug-ins? Then for years, you may have used it illegally, according to the USPTO. (Thankfully that one patent is now invalidated)

Regarding the Slashdot article we are discussing, here's the first Iridian patent from the eighties: Iris patent
It covers AUTOMATION of an existing manual process - iris recognition - that opthalmologists and common people do day in and day out. (Note how it says _multiple_ pictures may be used of the iris driven to different dilations). Even you have probably done this - remember the Afghan girl on the cover of National Geographic, and her followup picture decades later, taken veiled, showing only her eyes? How can a patent on all possible way to automate this process be granted? See end of the patent statement which says:
Although the present invention has been described in connection with a plurality of preferred embodiments thereof, many other variations and modifications will now become apparent to those skilled in the art. It is preferred, therefore, that the present invention be limited not by the specific disclosure herein, but only by the appended claims.

Now see this more recent patent granted to Iridian Handheld iris imaging apparatus and method . It references their first patent, and now covers handheld scanners -- the type security patrolmen might use at a stadium or airport. Ironically, it was issued on 9/11.

Now see the end of this patent:
Although illustrated and described herein with reference to certain specific embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention is not limited to the embodiments specifically disclosed herein. Those skilled in the art also will appreciate that many other variations of the specific embodiments described herein are intended to be within the scope of the invention as defined by the following claims.

So industry is unfairly restrained a few decades more by this patent -- and this will hold back God knows how many real improvements to security. Happy now?

> To say Bill Gates doesn't deserve all the money he as gotten bespoils
> the name of a great entrepreneur.
He probably deserved much of it, but to say he deserved "all the money" he got is foolish, given the company he led was convicted and forced to compensate others in multiple cases, and Gates was personally fined in the anti-trust lawsuit.

> I'm sure it's Bush's fault too.
No. I support Bush. Your opinion gives him a bad name.

Actually, "Mustang" is a trademarked word (see here). Since you can only trademark a word in one specific business segment, you can have the name "Mustang" for, say, a computer brand, but you're prohibited under trademark law to use that specific name for the name of a car.

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it .... (e) Consists of a mark which, (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive ... of them. ...

A mark is considered merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose or use of the specified goods or services. ...

The determination of whether or not a mark is merely descriptive must be made in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, not in the abstract. This requires consideration of the context in which the mark is used or intended to be used in connection with those goods or services, and the possible significance that the mark would have to the average purchaser of the goods or services in the marketplace. ...

Generic terms are terms that the relevant purchasing public understands primarily as the common or class name for the goods or services. ... These terms are incapable of functioning as registrable trademarks denoting source, and are not registrable on the Principal Register under 2(f) or on the Supplemental Register.

There is a two-part test used to determine whether a designation is generic: (1) What is the class of goods or services at issue? and (2) Does the relevant public understand the designation primarily to refer to that class of goods or services? The test turns upon the primary significance that the term would have to the relevant public.

Serial Number : 78286127

This link is good http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=p4 cp35.8.1

A quick search of live and dead trademarks with the word "stealth" in them returns a list of 514 different registered trademarks at http://uspto.gov/. I wonder if he's claiming his "right" to those as well?

I am a trademark lawyer (IAATML?) and have successfully represented a company against Mr. Stoller. He is beatable and not always at a high cost. One problem is that a number of companies have assigned their legitimate STEALTH marks to him and received cheap (or possibly free) licenses in return so his mark is applied to a wide variety of products and services. His piracy has thus gained a type of momentum by relying on externalities, e.g. "I'll let someone else clean up the mess because I'm out for cheap." Please realize that if he approaches you and offers you an assignment/license-back deal for cheap, he may be using you to gain a foothold near other more profitable targets. Above all, seek an IP attorney. Most offer free consultations that will provide you with information about your rights and your options. Your local or State Bar Association can provide referrals. Also, you should review previous cases involving Mr. Stoller at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board website (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/) to find lawyers that have been successful against his "tactics."

Does this guy really own anything but a bunch of really lame WordArt?

Quick search for the word "Stealth" in USPTO shows 595 Hits, things from "Sprocket wheels and transmission systems for land vehicles, particularly sprocket wheels for motorcycle chains" to buletproof clothing, to aquarium heaters to "molecular biological tools" to clothing line named "CATIMINI" (which apparently translates as STEALTH)

Trademark has to apply to something specific and he clearly does not own all of them. While you can file a suit for any reason, does not mean you can win.

-Em

I believe that this http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=2 cq9aq.5.2 is the trademark that this guy holds, and it seems to cover an extremely large array of products and services. Special event planning, training services in the field of trademark law, litigation and trademark licensing; amusement arcades, amusement parks featuring amusement rides and attractions, animal training, arranging and conducting education conferences, arranging ticket reservations for athletic competitions, shows and other entertainment events, educational testing, modeling for artists, motion picture theatres, movie studios, multi-media entertainment software for production services; music production services; news analysis and features distribution; news reporting services; officiating at sports contests; organizing community sporting and cultural events; photography services, physical fitness consultation, planetariums, portrait photography; preparing subtitles for movies and live theatrical events; production and distribution radio, television commercials and motion pictures, production of radio and television programs and film studies; providing a computer game that may be accessed network wide by network users, providing continuing legal education courses and fitness and exercise facilities; providing information on-line relating to computer games and computer enhancements for games, providing news in the nature of current events reporting and information in the field of employment training; providing recognition and incentives by the way of awards to demonstrate excellence in the fields of law, medicine, sports, computer hardware, accounting, nursing and secretaries; publication of journals; rental of artwork, rental of computer game programs, rental of films, rental of golf equipment, rental of photographic equipment, rental of video games and rolling skating rinks

I found the original trademark:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=saf2 o6.2.511

Interestly enough, this search leads to several other Stealth trademarks. I checked for torrent but couldn't find registered to this individual...though I didn't try looking too hard. However, it is obvious that the faster a knowledgeable judge can issue a smack down to this guy, the better.

I found the original trademark:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=saf2 o6.2.511

Interestly enough, this search leads to several other Stealth trademarks. I checked for torrent but couldn't find registered to this individual...though I didn't try looking too hard. However, it is obvious that the faster a knowledgeable judge can issue a smack down to this guy, the better.

I found the original trademark:

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/jumpto?f=doc&state=saf2 o6.2.511

Interestly enough, this search leads to several other Stealth trademarks. I checked for torrent but couldn't find registered to this individual...though I didn't try looking too hard. However, it is obvious that the faster a knowledgeable judge can issue a smack down to this guy, the better.

If you're curious and want to know about other "stealth" trademarks, head over to the USPTO database at: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=search&state =embs7e.1.1 and use "stealth[bi] & `RN > 0 & live[ld]" as your search term. You'll pull up lots of live (i.e. enforceable) trademarks still in use using the word "stealth."

If nothing else, this guy is trying to make a fast buck by playing fast and loose with the trademark laws.

"Stealth has been a word used since the time of Shakespeare. How the heck does someone get to trademark a frickin' word?"

This page may clear up some of your questions.

By the way, I used Explorer to look up that page on Yahoo.

Marketing divisions?

Will the front page of the USPTO do?

The USPTO really are a bunch of assholes.

---

90% of modern marketing is nothing more than an arms race and so purely parasitic.

Regarding the requirement of being "non-obvious", and for your own edification, I recommend perusing MPEP 2143 regarding what is required to prove "obviousness", including MPEP 2143.01-2143.03 (follow the "browse after" links). Those four sections are a tiny slice of what the MPEP has to offer about the issue of obviousness. One of the biggest misunderstandings about 35 USC 103 is that there is no provision for rejecting a "trivial" or "simple" invention. Both "novelty" and "non-obviousness" are determinations that are entirely based on the prior art, which you will see firsthand from MPEP 2143.

This court requires that a party seeking to invalidate a patent under 102 show that the allegedly invalidating prior art contains "each and every element of [the] claimed invention." Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc., 827 F.2d 744, 747, 3 USPQ2d 1766, 1767 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

5) The courts decides that to overrule the patent officers judgement you need that high level of proof of X Y Z.

The same test of X Y Z used by the courts to overrule a patent is used by the patent examiners when they try to reject patents. If you want court cases try any of the follwoing:

In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974)
In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970)
Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)
Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)
Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990)

or any number of other cases where an examiner was reversed because the rejection made did not live up to the requirements which the courts have set.

Part of the trouble is that the laws are written such that a patent applicant is entitled to a patent unless it can be shown that he/she is not, similar to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, unless it can be proven by the standards layed out by the courts that the patent appplication is either non-novel or obvious, the patent must be granted. The patent office is not allowed to simply call something obvious or say that it has been done before to reject the patent. They must come up with solid evidence which proves that it has been done or is obvious. If the courts do not agree with the evidence given or do not agree with the methodology used in the proof they will reverse the examiner and require the patent to be issued unless new evidence can be shown.

If you want to know the exact requirements and read about the numerous court cases which have layed out these requirements I suggest reading the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Chapter 2100.

"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). >"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.

Patent examiners carry the responsibility of making sure that the standard of patentability enunciated by the Supreme Court and by the Congress is applied in each and every case. The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), stated:

Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquires may have relevancy. . .

"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). >"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See also MPEP 2131.02. "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection.

Patent examiners carry the responsibility of making sure that the standard of patentability enunciated by the Supreme Court and by the Congress is applied in each and every case. The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), stated:

Under 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquires may have relevancy. . .

A company I used to work with applied for this same patent on 4/19/99. The amazon patent was filed on 7/12/02.

See http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=frogmagic &OS=frogmagic&RS=frogmagic

In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) (Appellant argued that claims to a permanent mold casting apparatus for molding trunk pistons were allowable over the prior art because the claimed invention combined "old permanent-mold structures together with a timer and solenoid which automatically actuates the known pressure valve system to release the inner core after a predetermined time has elapsed." The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.).

Google has seven patents.

I did point out that google patented highlighting search terms. While I didn't link to it, I haven't seen anyone link to one click.

The patent system works. Yes, even for software patent. What the world needs however is patent reviewers that aren't orang-utang, actually verify the claims and the prior arts, and are given enough time to get familiarized with whatever the patent application is dealing with, and accept or reject said application fairly.

But the hole in the formula you describe is the missing proof that certified patents are cheaper than those denied. They still keep the fee on denied patents.

If you study the USPTO Fee Schedule, you'll see how it works.

$900 due at 3.5 years after it was granted, $2,300 due at 7.5 years, and $3,800 due at 11.5 years. Compared to the $300 for the initial application, if I read the fee list correctly.

And the renewal fees are the good part of the patent office business, since the PTO doesn't actually have to do anything for the money, except make a note in the file that the fee has been paid. So for those patent offices around the world that are funded in whole or in part by the fees they collect, there is a direct incentive to let the standards slip to the lowest level they can possibly get away with.

I was in the middle of composing a detailed analysis of the prosecution of the application on which the patent issued, plus analyze that fact that two Continuation in part (CIP) applications have been filed and are pending, but, as now happens all to often, %$#^%$%#$%@ Firefox 1.0.4 crashed on me and I lost everything.

Executive summary:

1) The original application (the "grandparent") was allowed on first action, that is, exactly as the applicant filed; there was no rejection of any claims.

2) The first CIP (10/615,108) is all the claims of the patent with a limitation of a retention element to hold the MP3 player. This is currently under rejection on the basis of obviousness double patenting (which is NOT the usual obviousness under 35 USC 103 ) which, if not argued sucessfully by applicant, can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer; the resulting patent will die if and when the parent patent does.

3) The second CIP (10/780,329) has not yet been acted on. It is, as I paraphrase claim 1, a combination of a) and MP3 player and b) an audio player unit containing a speaker, and, optionally, FM receiver, both operatively adapted to the MP3 player.

Information of all the applications (the two CIPs have image file wrapper information) are publically available on the PTO's PAIR portal

Considering the number of patent-related stories that appear on Slashdot, the community should not, yet again, need to be beaten with a clue-by-four. But of course it does...

A further requirement for the patent system to work is that it should be open to challenge without enormous financial resources.

Guess what -- IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MET.

Look at this link

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2005 mar15.htm

Read the section entitled "Post Issuance Fees"

Ex parte reexamination $2520
Inter partes reexamination $8800.

Now look at this link

http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title35/partiii_c hapter30_.html

Read each and every subsection. The first five are the most important with respect to this problem.

If your art is so killer, and you can read simple instructions, it will cost you a grand total of $2520, photocopying, and postage to have the government do the hard lifting for you.

If you don't trust the government, and you can write a simple legal argument (in all likelihood you can't, because if you couldn't do the research to find this then you have little hope of doing research to find the standards for various kinds of patent invalidity), it will cost you a grand total of $8800, photocopying, postage, and the opportunity cost of the time that you're not spending on Slashdot whining about the evil patent system ($0) to be able to read and rebut any argument that the evil patent holder presents to overcome your not-killer-but-close prior art.

If you run an actual business and have better things to do, then you hire an attorney at the rate of $150-200/hr to either warn you off because your prior art is not going to achieve what you think it will achieve, or to present a professional argument backed by research and worthwhile citations to precedent.

If you cannot afford $3k-$10k, or more, then frankly you're not doing a business that is in any danger of being sued for patent infringement. Pre-emptive anti-lawyer, anti-patent whine response: Forming a business costs money, buying or renting a workplace costs money, buying equipment costs money, hiring staff costs money, paying workers comp and unemployment insurance costs money, and, in the rare case where a patent may be a problem, patent clearance or other efforts are going to actually cost money too. Grow up and deal with it.

Wondering what the patent was all about, I did a search. Here is the Abstract:

An FM transmitter and power supply/charging assembly electrically coupleable with an MP3 player. The assembly includes a modular docking unit having a main body portion with a docking cavity therein, wherein the main body portion contains the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, with coupling means in the docking cavity for connecting the MP3 player with the FM transmitter and power/charging circuitry, to accommodate FM transmission by the FM transmitter of audio content when played by the MP3 player in the docking cavity of the modular docking unit, and adapted for transmitting electrical power through the modular docking unit and the power/charging circuitry therein, for charging of a battery of the MP3 player and/or powering of the MP3 player.

How about some patent reform? I thought these things need to be non-obvious...

The full patent text is here: Patent #6,591,085

Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Evans '259.

Claim 1 is drawn to a method for improving peri-anal hygiene comprising the steps of providing and dispensing a gel onto a sheet of toilet paper, applying the gel to an anal area using the paper as an applicator and wiping the area with a a dry sheet of toilet paper to dry the area of any residual moisture. The gel is viscous enough to rest for several seconds on the paper without causing noticeable disintegration thereof.

IANAPL so I could be wrong, but it appears that this application was denied because some other genius had already patented a method for improving peri-anal hygiene. And they say America can no longer innovate!

We're still waiting for the inventor who can figure out a method of finding one's anus with both hands...

Our bashing of the PTO might mean a little more if once in a while some one would stand up and say, "Hooray for the PTO. They got one right."

Only a few hundred thousand to go.

Check it out Penn of Penn and Teller has a patent on a hot tub, dildo arrangment see http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,920,923.WKU.&OS=PN/5,920,923&RS =PN/5,920,923

Open Source is a registered trademark of the Open Source Initiative.

This is not true. They abandoned their trademark application.