The Dawn of Electronic Computing

On March 25, 1946, a project to build a computer called ENIAC was finished by John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The contract to build ENIAC was intiated by the US Army under the Codename "Project PX" and was classified "Top Secret."
It was not the first ever computer but ENIAC is re...garded as the first successful, general digital computer, a "Turing machine," capable of being programmed for any task.
ENIAC weighed over 27,000 kg (60,000 lb), and contained more than 18,000 vacuum tubes - "valves" that were used as switches, replacing the mechanical relays of previous computers. It took six technicians working full time to test and replace 2000 of the tubes each month.
In 1948, a major upgrade was made to allow data transfer to be done independently of calculation. This simplified programming and increased the speed considerably - so that an artillery shell trajectory could be calculated in about 30 seconds - half the actual flight time of the shell.
ENIAC was transferred to the Aberdeen Proving Ground, where it was in continuous operation until it was finally shut down at 11:45 p.m. on October 2, 1955.
So it goes.

The First Patent Law

On March 19, 1474 the world’s first patent law was enacted in Venice.  That law granted patent protection, the right to exclude others from making, selling or using an invention, for 10 years.   Like the patent laws that came after it, the law was introduced to attract inventors and investors to Venice who would create new economic activities there.  

What is remarkable about this law is that, even though it is brief, it contains most of the elements of modern patent laws.  And the genius of it was that it cost the government nothing.  Here is what it said:

“There are in this city and also there come temporarily… men from different places¹ and most clever minds, capable of devising and inventing all manner of ingenious contrivances.  And should it be provided, that the works and contrivances invented by them, others having seen them should not take their honor, men of such kind would exert their minds, [and] invent and make things which would be of no small utility and benefit our State². 

Therefore… each person who will make in this city any new and ingenious contrivance, not made heretofore in our dominion³, as soon as it is reduced to perfection⁴, so that it can be used and exercised⁵, shall give notice of the same⁶…  It being forbidden to any other in any territory and place of ours to make any other contrivance in the form and resemblance thereof ⁷, without the consent of the author up to ten years⁸.  And, however, should anybody make it, the aforesaid author and inventor will have the liberty to cite him before any office of this city⁹, by which office the aforesaid who shall infringe be forced to pay him the sum of one hundred ducats¹⁰ [about $7,000 in today's money] and the [infringing] contrivance be immediately destroyed¹¹.  Our government shall be at liberty to take and use in his need any of said contrivances, provided that no others than the authors shall exercise them¹².”*

And here are the elements contained in many modern patent laws:

1.     Rights not limited to residents.

2.     Societal benefit in exchange for the grant of exclusivity.

3.     Invention must be novel within the city.

4.     Reduction to practice.

5.     The invention must be enabled.

6.     Disclosure of the invention is a condition of exclusivity.

7.     Infringement includes equivalents.

8.     A fixed term of protection (10 years) is provided.

9.     Infringement action before administrative (not criminal) bodies is provided.

10.  Damage award for infringement is prescribed.

11.  Infringing goods must be confiscated and destroyed.

12.  Eminent domain of intellectual property is limited to supply by inventor.

England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I, which declared that patents could only be granted for “projects of new invention.”  

In 1789, Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution explicitly authorized patent laws in the United States “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.”

Do you have an invention?  We can help patent it for you.  See our web site at www.patent-practice.com.  


*Adapted from "Patents for Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology" by Philip W. Grubb, pp. 10-11, Oxford University Press, (1999).

Can You Patent "Something For Nothing?"

Section 101 of the U.S. Patent Act seems simple enough. You can patent a “new and useful” process, machine, article of manufacture or improvements of these things. But the invention has to be “new” and it has to be “useful.” Now, for the invention to be new, two other parts of the statute apply. In 35 USC §102, we have all of the requirements for novelty. And in 35 USC §103, the requirement for non obviousness is promulgated. We’ll discuss those at a later time.


But it might be fun to discuss what it means to be “useful.” How about a machine that gives us more energy output than we put in? How about a perpetual motion machine?


Now, something that can't possibly work, such as a perpetual motion machine, is arguably not very useful. So, in theory, one should not be able to obtain a patent on such a device. But right now, there are at least 8 issued U.S. patents, apparently still in force, that describe what appear to be perpetual motion machines.


For example, in U.S. Patent 7,379,286 "Quantum vacuum energy extraction", issued on May 27, 2008, we read “When atoms enter into suitable micro Casimir cavities a decrease in the orbital energies of electrons in atoms will thus occur. Such energy will be captured in the claimed devices. Upon emergence form [sic] such micro Casimir cavities the atoms will be re-energized by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum.” It certainly looks like we’re getting energy for free. But how are the atoms “re-energized by the ambient electromagnetic quantum vacuum?” Where does that energy come from? The patent states that the “process is also consistent with the conservation of energy in that all usable energy does come at the expense of the energy content of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum." Good!


Now, there is a lot of fancy talk about “zero-point-energy,” “Casimir cavities” and “a supply of fluid characterized by its ability to… take in electromagnetic radiation from the ambient surroundings.” What “fluid” would not do that? Anyway, even though we have no idea what all that means, there is something about it that doesn’t seem quite right. This is an issued patent that describes a device that is supposed to give us energy for nothing.  And all we have to do is to harvest that energy from the "electromagnetic quantum vacuum."  The examiner allowed this patent on first action without even considering that this device might not work as claimed.


You might be able to spot some perpetual motion patents. Look for phrases like “zero-point energy,” or in the claims for “alternator and electric motor work in combination,” or “spring driven apparatus which, in essence, feeds upon itself,” or “all of the flux from a permanent magnet” (all???) in combination with “enable useful work,” or, a favorite, “A chamber with a partition which lets gas molecules flow one way and not the other.” Or maybe you can find your own.


Have fun!

Build Me a Stradivarius

Here's an article about printing anything - including 3-dimensional objects with, for example, an ink-jet printer.  Fascinating.

http://www.economist.com/node/18114221

USPTO opens satellite office in Detroit

Interesting move by the USPTO to establish new jobs and help with the patent process. Detroit is also and interesting choice. However, in the on-line statement the following is said: “The current backlog of patent applications delays the commercialization of American innovation and the creation of new jobs and economic growth.” . Hmmm...According to the statistics, of the top 10 companies that received patents in the US in 2010, fully 56.1% of the patents were issued to Japanese or Korean companies. Draw your own conclusions but I'm not sure "American Innovation" is as properly served as Locke would want us to think.

USPTO to Open First Satellite Office
in Detroit

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke
and USPTO Director David Kappos
announced in December plans for the
USPTO to open its first satellite
office in Detroit, Mich., in 2011.
The new office is expected to create
more than 100 new jobs in its first
year and provide a boost to the
region’s innovation economy.
The office will represent the first
phase of the USPTO’s Nationwide
Workforce Program, an effort to hire
more patent examiners and seek out
additional resources and technical
expertise in locations across the
country. More information can be
found in the press release

Single Year Patent Filings Over 1M in China

You may see this title reported, but some explanation is needed to put it all in perspective.

On November 18, SIPO received its 1,000,925 application, of which 323,266 are for inventions, 337,659 for utility models and 340,000 for designs, representing 32.3%, 33.7% and 34% respectively.

By comparison, the total number of patent applications in the US for 2009 was 482,871of which 456,106 were for utility, 25,866 were design and 959 were plant applications.

CIPO PATENT RULES:
Rule 2 "Invention" in the Patent Law means any new technical solution relating to a product, a process or improvement thereof.
"Utility model" in the Patent Law means any new technical solution relating to the shape, the structure, or their combination, of a product, which is fit for practical use.
"Design" in the Patent Law means any new design of the shape, the pattern or their combination, or the combination of the color with shape or pattern, of a product, which creates an aesthetic feeling and is fit for industrial application. (Design also includes any integrated circuit design used on computer chips)

So the numbers are a bit misleading. However, make no mistake, the Chinese application rate is increasing at a rate of 24.1% from 2000-2008, with the US rate at 5.6%, EPO at 4.8%, Korea at 6.8% and Japan at NEGATIVE 0.8%.

Just thought ya might wanna know.

If You Invent It - Claim It.

Mr. Italo Marchiony had a problem.  He was selling a wonderful confection – an Italian lemon ice – from a push cart (also called a hokey-pokey) on Wall Street in Manhattan, and it was among the most popular treats of its day.  The problem was the container – a small liquor glass which was to be returned to the push cart after the customer was finished so that it could be cleaned and reused.  But Mr. Marchiony's customers were usually in a hurry and did not bring their glasses back - or the glasses got broken, increasing his overhead considerably.

So he went to work and invented a wonderful new, leak proof, edible ice cream cone and a mold for making it; for which he was awarded U.S. Patent No. 746,971 on December 13, 1903.  The mold was in four sections, all hinged together so that the small cups could be taken out without breaking them.  By pouring in a waffle batter and heating the mold in a very hot oven, Mr. Marchiony could make a large supply of the edible cups very quickly.  They even had a small handle.  Customers loved them. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Marchiony only claimed the mold in his patent  - not the cones.  So when Mr. Ernest A. Hamwi began selling waffle type cones filled with ice cream at the 1904 St. Louis World’s Fair, Mr. Marchiony was powerless to stop him.

Fortunately, the story ends well.  Mr. Marchiony’s treats were so popular that by the time of his retirement in 1938, he had a fleet of 45 push carts in New York, operated by men he had hired.  He made an excellent living from his invention right through the great depression – and gave people jobs in the process.

But the moral of our story is this:  if you invent the ice cream cone and a mold for making it, and you wish to protect your invention, be sure to claim the mold and the cone.