Patent Granted on Sideways Swinging

Matt Van Gundy writes "In another brilliant move by the well loved U.S. Patent and Trademark Office a patent (6,368,227) has been granted to a Mr. Steven Olson for inventing the method of swinging sideways on a swing. The patent even lays claim to "inducing a component of forward and back motion into the swinging motion, resulting in a swinging path that is generally shaped as an oval." I claim prior art, but perhaps I am one of the few fortunate ones who enjoyed this method of swinging long before its 'invention' by Mr. Steven Olson. " My favorite line from the patent : "The user may even choose to produce a Tarzan-type yell while swinging in the manner described, which more accurately replicates swinging on vines in a dense jungle forest. Actual jungle forestry is not required."

Comments

Re:Wrong topic.

[number11]

>There's no way this is for real.

It's a gen-u-wine US patent. Backed by whatever force of law genuine US patents have. And possessing whatever moral force the law provides.

>someone out to prove that the patent office is either overworked or very negligent.

Probably. Did anyone notice that the patent lawyer has the same last name as the patent holder? And remarkably enough, the phone listing for the attorney (or, at least, somebody with the same name as the attorney) is for the same address as the inventor. It would appear daddy used junior as a stand-in here.

Re:Default should be deny.

[MyNameIsFred]

This makes absolutely NO sense to me.

If the patent office can't understand something, it should deny the patent.

So if they're a bunch of idiots, inventors should pay the price.

If the patent office doesn't have the resources to properly investigate the patent, it should deny it.

If they're underfunded, inventors should pay the price.

If a single company submits too many patents, they should be denied.

If they're inventive, they should be penalized. Think about Edison, under your rules he would be denied

While I agree the Patent Office needs to be reformed. Your suggestion doesn't fix any of the problems, and only penalizes inventors. How about some useful suggestions like more funding to hire more examiners. Or did you know that examiners have to fill quotas -- that is process X number of applications per week. How about getting rid of the quotas or reducing them.

I live in D.C. and actually know some patent examiners. They are not the complete idiots that ./'ers think they are. Many of them have Ph.D.'s in the field that they examine -- e.g., a Ph.D. in biochemistry looks at biochemistry patents. At the same time, they have to live within the beauracracy, and it's inane rules.

Reform is good, as long as its sensible.

Wrong.

[Irvu]

The US code does not allow for "obvious" patents, such as this one. It also charges the USPTO with asessing the nature of the patents. Specifically, see U.S. Code Title 35 (Patent Law) Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 9:

"The Commissioner may revise and maintain the classification by subject matter of United States letters patent, and such other patents and printed publications as may be necessary or practicable, for the purpose of determining with readiness and accuracy the novelty of inventions for which applications for patent are filed" [emphasis added.]

See also Chapter 10 Patentability of Inventions. Or here for a summary.

The interesting question is, did Olsen violate his oath in applying for this, or was he serious?