13 thoughts on “

  1. 5

    Looks like the abstract idea of killing rodents with a gun implemented by conventional trap elements. Patent ineligible.

    1. 5.1

      … trap elements implemented with a gun fails eligiblity…..?

      I am pretty sure that you were attempting a jest, but I don’t think that you quite made it.

  2. 4

    If this was still from the era in which the Patent Office required a working model, being an examiner could be a dangerous job.

  3. 2

    My favorite line from the spec:

    “The invention may also be used in connection with a door or a window, so as to kill any person or thing opening the door or window to which it is attached.”

    He may not have sold any mousetraps, but he surely inspired a whole genre of bar examination questions.

    1. 2.3

      Not just bar exams. Looking at that cord tied to the trigger, how often have we seen that as a plot device in novels and films?

      Always presuming, of course, that “animal” in the title of the patent includes “human”.


          Good point. Now you mention it, neither do I see a cord or a knot. Instead it looks like the trigger as such includes an extremely long and slim rigid metallic forwardly directed remote actuation element.

          Even though the patent has only one page, I haven’t taken the trouble to read it. But on looking again at the drawing, I wonder how large and heavy a mouse it would take, to trigger the trap.

          Mind you, in Texas, in 1882, the mice were probably much bigger and fatter (and therefore more dangerous, more of a problem, than the ones I am familiar with. Even so, I wonder, might there have been be an enablement problem, with the invention as claimed.

  4. 1

    Trap? More like atomizer, or vaporizer.

    One drawing, and a one-page spec with a single claim.

    I’ll venture he didn’t sell a lot of those “traps”.

Comments are closed.