The Grinch Who Patented Christmas

theodp writes "The USPTO has reversed its earlier rejection and notified Amazon that the patent application for CEO Jeff Bezos' invention, Coordinating Delivery of a Gift, has been examined and is allowed for issuance as a patent. BTW, Amazon was represented before the USPTO by Perkins Coie, who also supplied Bezos with legal muscle in his personal fight against zoning laws that threatened to curb the size of his Medina mansion (reg.) before the City of Medina eventually gave up on regulating the size of homes (reg.)."

Comments

Re:Isn't this obvious

[servoled]

Can you prove that this has been done for years? Unfortunatley the courts have set the burden of proving obviousness so high that it becomes difficult to reject something as being obvious.

If you would like to take a crack at doing it here is basically what would be required:

1) a dated publication or with a date prior to 9/12/1997 which discloses at least part of the claimed invention.

2) one or more dated publications with dates prior to 9/12/1997 which disclose the features that are not disclosed in the first dated publication and disclose motivation to add these missing features into the system of the first publication (i.e. simply because the features may exist individuallly does not mean that it would be obvious to combine them into a single system according to the courts).

Re:Isn't this obvious

[servoled]

The courts have visited this issue, see here:

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.).

The question then becomes whether or not automatically generating an e-mail to the recipient instead of calling the recipient is "broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result" according to the courts. Having not read the decision I really can't comment on that.

Re:Next up...

[Elektroschock]

The time is not to make fun of the patent system in general. It is the right time to call for reform in the United States. There are currently US patent reform discussions initiated by Microsofts while myriads of stupid MS lobbyists walk on the floors of the European parliament to lobby for Software patents:

* Hugo Lueders, CompTIA or Initiative for Software Choice
* Jonathan Zuck, ACT
* Simon Gentry, Campaign for Creativity
* Pleon
* DCI Group
and so on. And the more professional guys, which are also partially paid by Microsoft.

* Francisco Mingorance, Business Software Alliance
* Mark McGann, EICTA

So I recommend you to act now.

1. Help to save Europe, participate in our webdemo

2. Subscribe to the US FFII List

We do not have to complain about the US patent system, we can change it.

Re:Here, let me put a clearer reasoning

[servoled]

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.