We have snow on the ground here in Missouri. That makes me think of Gary Reinert’s new patent entitled “method and apparatus for rapid stopping of a motor vehicle particularly on snow or ice.” U.S. Pat. No. 11,091,154. The image below from the patent tells the story. Conventional brakes are awful. Antilock Brakes are much better, but the Reinert Snow Brakes take the cake. Rather than just stopping the wheels, the Reinert Snow Brakes actually shift the car into reverse and spin the tires backward to slow-down the car. I feel like I saw this in Cannonball Run II, but I’m probably misremembering.
Here is claim 1:
A method for emergency stopping of a motor vehicle comprising the steps of:
activating the emergency stopping of the motor vehicle;
stopping the forward rotation of each wheel immediately following the activation of the emergency stopping of the motor vehicle;
activating a transmission of the vehicle, which shifts an engine of the motor vehicle between driving the wheels in the forward rotation direction, a neutral park position and a reverse rotation direction, immediately after the forward rotation motion of each wheel has ceased such that each wheel maybe driven in the reverse rotation direction;
rotating each driven wheel in the reverse rotation direction until the vehicle is stopped;
activating the transmission of the vehicle once the vehicle is stopped to place the transmission into the original forward rotation position or into the park position,
wherein the step of activating the transmission includes using an on board electronic control unit whereby the method for emergency stopping of a motor vehicle is controlled by an on board electronic control unit, and
wherein the step of activating the transmission includes using sensors on each ground engaging wheel.
The examiner found several on-point references, including US5492512A – Brake system with wheel-reversing means for an automobile (Wu). Reinert distinguished those references by requiring a particular shifting through “neutral park position” before heading to reverse, and also requiring sensors on the wheels that are used to activate the emergency stop.
This patent has a CON pending (US 17/403,384). Not available yet on PAIR. It will be interesting to see what is covered in that application.
[S]now on the ground here in Missouri… makes me think of Gary Reinert’s new patent… U.S. Pat. No. 11,091,154.
On the assumption that you are not familiar with every patent in 11 million series, is there a particular reason why you are familiar with this one? Mr Reinert listed his address on the patent as Carnegie PA, so clearly he is not your neighbor in Columbia MO. Is he a former schoolmate, or some such, that you should notice his eccentric invention?
On ice (and probably on snow as well), you stop in the shortest distance when locking up all four wheels. ABS does NOT shorten the stopping distance. It DOES, however, allow you to maintain control of the car while also braking. You can maneuver some, or ensure that you brake in a straight line. Locking up all four wheels is dangerous because you no longer have control. One little spot of greater or less traction on one side and suddenly you’re spinning as well.
This is even taught in Driver’s Ed.
Even if this invention were to work, the fact that it also gives up control of the vehicle is a non-starter for me.
Let’s discuss a bit more the forces of friction, and how ABS works. Could it be that adding the claimed invention to an ABS system delivers a performance enhancement?
I can see that locking all four wheels is the best way to pull down the vehicle’s kinetic energy and that one can’t steer the vehicle when the wheels are locked. But suppose that the ABS system shuttles the wheels between locked and rotation in reverse gear? Can you steer when the wheels are counter-rotating?
I guess not. I guess that steering is not accomplished with the steered wheels functioning as a pair of tillers. Otherwise, locked front wheels would steer just as well as freely rotating front wheels. So how does it happen, that you can steer better when the front wheels are freely rotating? If they “bite” on the road surface when locked-up wheels don’t then why do locked up wheels slow the vehicle down more effectively?
think of your system force diagram (paying attention to relative motion between the different system components)
I was citing to some old school vids below, I figured I might drop one of the better ones for people that are into physics and all. An actual good explanation of where exactly “horsepower” came from.
link to youtube.com
The claim uses the word ‘maybe’? Say what? Even if they intended to write ‘may be’, that’s still an unusual phrase to use in a US patent claim.
Likely, “maybe” was “may be” and the OCR software messed it up.
This is common.
I think the issue is “maybe” or “may be” is not limiting. But in this case, the “may be” comes in right before the claim adds the limitation.
But wait! Fred Flintstone often utilized this very method when driving in snow! And that was over 30 years ago!
Indeed, because stopping “vehicles” in this matter goes back to cavemen days . . . and braking is abstract . . . (well; you know the rest) . . .
This invention does not work as advertised. A thought experiment helps illustrate why.
Imagine a dragster with so much horsepower that it can spin it’s tires without moving forward. Let’s make it easier by saying that is is spinning its tires on an ice surface. Newton’s first law states that “[a] body continues in its state of rest, or in uniform motion in a straight line, unless acted upon by a force.” If the vehicle is stationary (i.e., because it is spinning its tires), then no force is being acted upon it when the tires are spinning.
Now consider what is happening when a vehicle is slowing down via the brakes. There is a force being acted upon the vehicle to cause it to stop. However, as we showed above, you can spin the tires relative to the ground yet generate little to no force on the vehicle.
To understand a little about about what makes a car stop is that a vehicle in motion has kinetic energy and that kinetic energy (1/2*Mass*Velo^2) has to be transformed to another form of energy. This is accomplished (for the most part) via the brakes by transforming kinetic energy into heat energy (there is some energy dissipated also via aerodynamic friction and rolling friction). How much heat can be dissipated is based upon the friction (i.e., a force) between the vehicle and the road, which is a function of mass of the vehicle and the coefficient of friction between the vehicle (i.e., the tires) and the road.
A basic engineering class should have taught that there is a coefficient of static friction and a coefficient of dynamic friction. Importantly, the coefficient of static friction is higher than the coefficient of dynamic friction. In order to have the highest amount of friction, the tires (at the point of contact) need to be stationary relative to the ground. When the tires start to spin relative to the ground, your car is losing traction (i.e., friction) and also stopping power. Doing just a little research indicates that the difference between the coefficients of dynamic and static friction are fairly small on dry concrete. As such, it doesn’t make much of a difference if you lock up your tires on concrete versus ABS. However, there is a substantial difference between the the coefficients of dynamic and static friction on wet surfaces/ice. As such, if you tire is moving relative to the ground (e.g., the tire is stationary and the ground is moving or the tire is moving at a different speed than the ground), then the stopping power is greatly reduced.
All told, this “invention” does work like it was intended to. However, a braking system (albeit one that is worse than others) still has utility, which means it is patentable.
WT, thanks. Your answer reminds me of the principle of operation of an ABS braking system. Having (just once) experienced the life-saving capability of an ABS system, I would not wish my vehicle to be equipped with anything else (least of all this particular “invention”).
But is there not a typo in your last para? Does the “invention” ever work “as intended”?
But is there not a typo in your last para?
Yes. It should be “does [not] work like it was intended to” … i.e., repeating what I wrote in the first sentence.
“To understand a little about about what makes a car stop is that a vehicle in motion has kinetic energy and that kinetic energy (1/2*Mass*Velo^2) has to be transformed to another form of energy. This is accomplished (for the most part) via the brakes by transforming kinetic energy into heat energy (there is some energy dissipated also via aerodynamic friction and rolling friction). How much heat can be dissipated is based upon the friction (i.e., a force) between the vehicle and the road, which is a function of mass of the vehicle and the coefficient of friction between the vehicle (i.e., the tires) and the road.”
Under WT’s ta rd thinking he wants the breaks to “generate more heat” to “transform energy”. Back in real life, we want less heat generated, and more contact and friction between the brake shoe/pad and the drum all with hopefully very little heat/wear. See 3:00. Also watch the whole vid, it’s a good one. Even WT might be able to learn.
link to youtube.com
“However, there is a substantial difference between the the coefficients of dynamic and static friction on wet surfaces/ice. As such, if you tire is moving relative to the ground (e.g., the tire is stationary and the ground is moving or the tire is moving at a different speed than the ground), then the stopping power is greatly reduced.”
That is all true, but irrelevant if you have a sufficient traction having been gained in a patch of ground to apply motion with the wheels (here specifically backwards motion). As noted in my posts below the invention isn’t going to work all that much on the ice/snow patch itself, as you are discussing, but may still stop the car due to patches where traction is gained during the overall stop. Though additionally hypothetically they might be able to spin the wheels in reverse and dislodge some snow/ice prior to whichever set of wheels is coming afterwards if they have the breaks on the correct set of wheels and the correct set of wheels doing the dislodging. That I’ve actually seen irl where back wheels dislodge snow for front wheels to then get a grip for breaks to work when the vehicle is going down backwards. Not sure if that is discussed in the patent or covered by the claims tho.
Back in real life, we want less heat generated, and more contact and friction between the brake shoe/pad and the drum all with hopefully very little heat/wear
Really, did you go to engineering school? Forget engineering school, I think the law of the conservation of energy is taught in high school physics.
More contact and more friction = more heat. Not watching the video, but you want big brakes because you have less heat generated per surface area. However, the goal is still to generate heat. This is the law of the conversation of energy. This is a law that cannot be broken.
Do a search using Google. Use these terms: brakes kinetic energy heat. The first hit is from northwestern [dot] edu. This is what it says:
Friction braking is the most commonly used braking method in modern vehicles. It involves the conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy by applying friction to the moving parts of a system. The friction force resists motion and in turn generates heat, eventually bringing the velocity to zero.
This is from the wikipedia entry for “brake’:
Most brakes commonly use friction between two surfaces pressed together to convert the kinetic energy of the moving object into heat
That is all true, but irrelevant if you have a sufficient traction having been gained in a patch of ground to apply motion with the wheels (here specifically backwards motion).
SMH. With a wheel, you are working with either dynamic friction (the wheel is slipping) or static friction (the wheel is not slipping). Your “sufficient traction” is imprecise as to what it refers but it more than likely refers to the situation of static friction (i.e., NOT what this invention is about).
Though additionally hypothetically they might be able to spin the wheels in reverse and dislodge some snow/ice prior to whichever set of wheels is coming afterwards if they have the breaks on the correct set of wheels and the correct set of wheels doing the dislodging.
If my recollection serves me correctly, you are more of a ‘southern’ guy. This means that your experience driving in snow is limited.
That I’ve actually seen irl where back wheels dislodge snow for front wheels to then get a grip for breaks to work when the vehicle is going down backwards.
I doubt it. Tires don’t really “dislodge” snow. They are more than likely compact the snow — into ice. Regardless, this invention has nothing to do with this phenomena, even if you described it accurately.
This is from the continental tires website:
If there is no grit on the roads, avoid driving in the wheel tracks or other vehicles; packed snow is more icy than fresh snow.
In my firm, some colleagues are quick, occasionally to dismiss the work product of an Examiner as that of a not very intelligent person. What amuses me is that those colleagues who are quickest to determine that the Examiner is dim are invariably the dimmest of my colleagues.
So it is with comparable amusement that I read Examiner 6 telling us all about the deficient powers of analysis of attorney WT. I fear for my cases at the USPTO, if every Examiner there is as quick off the mark as 6, to dismiss the written submissions of attorneys as coming from a person less intelligent than themself.
Very educational, sometimes, these comment threads.
So too is growing up on a farm, for testing scientific theory against sleeves rolled up practice in the real world of (to take just one example) when tyres grip and when they don’t. But that’s another story altogether.
Ah yes, the British “tyres” as opposed to the US “tires”. Not sure which I like best.
“Not watching the video”
Of course not, because you’re tar ded. Which is why chevy engineers of yesteryear are much much better than you.
“Not watching the video, but you want big brakes because you have less heat generated per surface area.
That is true, and you can do so to the extent that the noticable heat becomes basically negligible in the system of parts so that you don’t mess up your parts. As in the vid and other ways still.
“However, the goal is still to generate heat. ”
^Tar d thinking.
“This is the law of the conversation of energy. This is a law that cannot be broken.”
^How to compound ta rd thinking in real time! “conservation of energy dictates that I will have to transform the energy therefore my goal is to generate heat!” – ta rd engineer.
Just fyi bro, the generation of heat is not “the goal” it is a “byproduct” of many ways (here friction) of achieving “the goal”. A generally undesirable one at that. The goal, obviously, is to arrest the movement of the car usually by having arrested the movement of the wheels and having done that by whatever means. Specifically friction in many cases.
Again, this is why chevy engineers are better than you.
“NOT what this invention is about”
Maybe, I didn’t actually read the whole thing.
“If my recollection serves me correctly, you are more of a ‘southern’ guy. This means that your experience driving in snow is limited.”
Born in the mountains tho. We got a lot lot lot more snow than where I am now in the south. Blizzard o 93′ had us snowed in for nigh a month. Where I am now we’re having what I believe is just the 2nd decent snowing of the last 6 years literally today/yesterday. We have around 4 inch down now and temps too cold to melt it probably. Totalled my grandfather’s truck (twice in under 5 mins lol that time period suxed) driving it to Alexandria in snow actually. Should have stopped when snow was like 3 inch, even 1 inch with nothing in the back of the truck, and that snowstorm got large after I limped home in totaled truck. Was my first or second year in alexandria I believe.
“I doubt it. Tires don’t really “dislodge” snow.”
This bruh joking. Here’s one, but there should be better films of this available.
link to youtube.com
“Regardless, this invention has nothing to do with this phenomena, even if you described it accurately.”
Maybe.
“In my firm, some colleagues are quick, occasionally to dismiss the work product of an Examiner as that of a not very intelligent person. What amuses me is that those colleagues who are quickest to determine that the Examiner is dim are invariably the dimmest of my colleagues.”
Max on point today.
The goal, obviously, is to arrest the movement of the car usually by having arrested the movement of the wheels and having done that by whatever means. Specifically friction in many cases.
Seriously, put the shovel down. The hole you are digging is huge. Friction begets heat. While against my nature, I dig click on the original link you provided. Seriously, you link to a Chevrolet brake ad from 1934? Moreover, without seeing the ad, I predicted exactly what it was talking about. It was describing the need of bigger brake pads to reduce the temperature the brakes are exposed to.
What has apparently confused you is their description of “heat.” The same amount of heat in a smaller volume results in an increased temperature. They were talking about bigger brake pads to reduce the amount of heat — but technically, what they were referring to is reducing the temperature as it is the temperature that degrades the brake pads. How much heat is generated is based the coefficient of friction, the pressure applied, and the surface area over which the friction is being applied. The important part is that you can generate more heat but at lower temperatures when you have a bigger brake (or, technically, brake pad). This is what this advertisement is all about.
May I suggest you look at this video, which is from a physics professor. He begins with the conversation of energy equation at 2:20. At 3:08 he explains that the kinetic energy of the vehicle (while the wheel is moving) = the heat lost from friction (after the wheel is stopped).
Blizzard o 93′ had us snowed in for nigh a month.
That’s because the people where you live (and probably including yourself) don’t know know how to deal with snow very well. 24-36″ of snow might close things (like schools) for a couple of days here, but that is it. Moreover, it won’t be like you cannot get out and go to the store. Groceries stores might close during the peak of the storm but will be open shortly thereafter.
Totalled my grandfather’s truck (twice in under 5 mins lol that time period suxed) driving it to Alexandria in snow actually. Should have stopped when snow was like 3 inch, even 1 inch with nothing in the back of the truck
Case closed.
“In my firm, some colleagues are quick, occasionally to dismiss the work product of an Examiner as that of a not very intelligent person. What amuses me is that those colleagues who are quickest to determine that the Examiner is dim are invariably the dimmest of my colleagues.”
OK Max — put your money with your money is. Who is right? Me or 6?
Hi WT. You ask me to clarify whether it is you or 6 that I have in my sights. Sorry that you had to ask. My second para made that clear, I had thought.
Earlier, I riffed on about the effectiveness of an ABS system. Who has experienced the juddering you get inside the vehicle, as the system oscillates between locking the wheels (to deprive the vehicle of kinetic energy as effectively as possible) and releasing the wheels (in order the make available to the driver some residual steering capability). That’s the way to save lives. Three cheers for those who invented ABS.
“What has apparently confused you”
Um no I’m not confused at all ta rd, I’m actually an engineer and understand what they’re talking about. Apparently unlike yourself. And I can also separate one element from another. It’s an advanced skill, maybe someday you’ll learn.
“That’s because the people where you live (and probably including yourself) don’t know know how to deal with snow very well.”
Lelz. The ta rd speaks! They “know how” just fine. It’s a small town with only small town street clearing/snow plow services. There’s only so many plows to go around and we didn’t have many monster truck sized snow plow trucks. That is as none of that is usually required. Took two weeks or so to get many of them cleared from 4 ft of snow (non-drift). And we remained mostly closed until most of the rest of roads were clearedish. Doesn’t have much to do with “know how” it has to do with $$$ spent prior to the storm preparing for that much snow with plows and trucks to push em etc. and what is economical.
I’m actually an engineer and understand what they’re talking about.
Then write like an engineer. Then reason like an engineer. All you’ve given me is gobbledygook that isn’t based upon physics.
You have yet to refute any of the physics I’ve cited. To stop a vehicle, kinetic energy needs to be transferred into heat. That is plain and simple. Friction creates heat. Everything else being equal, more friction = more heat. The coefficient of friction between the tires and road decreases significantly when the vehicle is sliding in wet/icy conditions.
It’s an advanced skill, maybe someday you’ll learn.
False bravado doesn’t look good on you.
Doesn’t have much to do with “know how” it has to do with $$$ spent prior to the storm preparing for that much snow with plows and trucks to push em etc. and what is economical.
You don’t have the $$$ spent because you don’t need to because you rarely get snow. A large portion of the budgets of the towns where I live are on snow clearing equipment (along with salt, sand, and the salaries of the people operating it) — because we get LOTS of snow.
Let me give you hint, when you do something a lot, you get better at it — and that includes driving in it.
Max on point today, eh 6…?
Did you read all the way through (to and including:)
“So it is with comparable amusement that I read Examiner 6 telling us all about the deficient powers of analysis of attorney WT. I fear for my cases at the USPTO, if every Examiner there is as quick off the mark as 6, to dismiss the written submissions of attorneys as coming from a person less intelligent than themself.”
Did you read all the way through (to and including:)
Reading is not one of his strong suits — watching youtube videos, however, he rocks at that.
We have snow on the ground here in Missouri.
Bet it does not last. MO winters now are much milder than when I was a boy growing up in St. Louis.
Half the vehicles I drive don’t have “neutral”…they are electric CVT….
Atari Man said pretty much all that needed to be said about this pile of junk.
Practice this method to your heart’s content, snow-loving people. There will be no cost to any of you.
Is this just a paper invention, or has it been prototyped or otherwise demonstrated in practice? I’m not saying it wouldn’t work, but it’s certainly not obvious that, once the tyres have lost traction, there is necessarily a significant difference between the wheels locking up or spinning in reverse. My intuition is that retaining traction, i.e. the ABS strategy, is probably going to result in the shortest stopping distance. And then there’s the issue of retaining control of the vehicle, particularly if it’s front wheel drive and those reverse-spinning wheels are also the ones you’re trying to steer with!
I’m calling lack of utility on this one.
Agree. Seems patent examiners in the US never reject inventions for lack of utility. Maybe because the public isn’t really hurt if someone owns a monopoly on a method that does not work?
“Seems patent examiners in the US never reject inventions for lack of utility. ”
Seems like a braking system to me. It doesn’t have to be better than other braking systems to have utility.
Excellent response. I do not know if AU (Mr Summerfield’s jurisdiction) has a “promise of the patent doctrine” like CA’s. The claimed brakes would lack utility under that standard, but not under the U.S. standard.
Yes, we do. A federal appeals court had the opportunity to do away with it in 2018, but unfortunately declined to do so. I was under the impression, however, that the Canadian Supreme Court banished the promise doctrine in that country in 2017 (AstraZeneca Canada Inc v Apotex Inc).
[T]he Canadian Supreme Court banished the promise doctrine…
Good to know. Thanks for that.
““Seems patent examiners in the US never reject inventions for lack of utility. ”
There is also the broader metagame to consider. A patent is a right to prevent people from doing ‘something.’ If people don’t want to do that ‘something’ for whatever reason(s), then the patent is just a donation to the Federal Government.
Tl;dr who cares about utility
“I’m calling lack of utility on this one.”
I’m pretty sure it can be used as a braking system.
“it’s certainly not obvious that, once the tyres have lost traction, there is necessarily a significant difference between the wheels locking up or spinning in reverse.”
Yes but loss of traction is not always long-lasting over a long stretch of ground being covered. And if, when you do get a bit of traction then your wheels are turning the other way, then I would think it’s possible there would be a difference made, depending on the circumstances (do you immediately lose traction again or not).
“My intuition is that retaining traction, i.e. the ABS strategy, is probably going to result in the shortest stopping distance.”
No reason why you can’t do ABS style stuff at the same time as turning the wheels backwards. That is, you can still stop the wheels from locking up. Not sure if them going backwards stops them from getting traction, though it likely isn’t as conducive to such as the wheels going a bit forwards and getting traction. Might be room here for a super hybrid system where the sensors on the wheels/computer relay information as to whether it would be better to ABS, or better to get some traction and then try going in reverse in a given stop (based on test results in tests).
“And then there’s the issue of retaining control of the vehicle,”
That was my chief concern as well. Though I suppose as long as you have to turn this system on on purpose (rather than it being on by default and taking you by surprise) it should likely be ok for a decent skilled driver. Some people already shift into reverse manually in snow during a long snow stopping incident, so this isn’t entirely unheard of. For instance:
link to risingsun4x4club.org
Although I do agree with you overall that it is not a miracle solution most likely.
So much to write, so little time. I boggled when I read that the invention over the prior art is to shift “through neutral”. So I scrolled down the patent specification, looking to see what performance difference this feature achieves. I did not find any mention or discussion of it. Ought there not to be a WD of this feature, somewhere in the application as filed? Can any reader help?
What I did find though is paragraph [0017] that announces what is the “essence” of the “invention”. More boggling. Is this another reason why Dennis invites us to contemplate this patent?
Shame there is no patent family member at the EPO. Prosecution there would have been fun to watch.
Last, does the invention work? Ever? I am sceptical. Spinning the wheels reduces friction with the ground, doesn’t it? Might you not come to a halt quicker with bog-standard ABS than by resorting to spinning the wheels in reverse gear? Who wants this invention? Not pedestrians, surely. Is it nothing more than a vanity project of its Inventor? What risks would a manufacturer run, who instals this invention in their products?
“Spinning the wheels reduces friction with the ground, doesn’t it? ”
In general yes, but if you hit a patch of solid traction that wouldn’t matter and you get a little deceleration (backwards acceleration).
“Who wants this invention? ”
Probably people that live in heavy snow/ice areas and are already masters of traversing snow. It’s one more trick to put in the ol toolkit. As some readers of the thread I linked to above note, it would be good if you’re facing certain catastrophe, tho putting you at a risk to your internal parts, chains etc. in/on your vehicle if someone can’t come up with a good design to handle this maneuver and stop damage to the internals or chains etc.
“I boggled when I read that the invention over the prior art is to shift “through neutral”.”
Don’t forget the sensors. And don’t forget that was likely just one feature over one given piece of prior art.
6, looking at what you link to, how do these club members shift into reverse without passing through neutral? How else does one get into reverse?
I haven’t forgotten the sensors; I just still don’t see what this claim contributes to what was already known. The good patent gives the public something useful, new and inventive whereas the bad patent deprives them of what they already had. Isn’t that right?
I’m still waiting for somebody to reveal to me how “shifting through neutral” was identified in the patent application as filed as a feature of the inventive concept presented to the PTO on the filing date.
“6, looking at what you link to, how do these club members shift into reverse without passing through neutral?”
They probably do go “through neutral” in their real life examples (some in the thread seem to say explicitly that they do). I presume that the “shift through neutral” limitation/clause was only distinguishing over one very specific piece of prior art that shifted straight from drive forward to drive in reverse. In general most people would likely “go through neutral”, even if the car never formally and in reality is “in neutral” for an appreciable time. Too many people are getting hung up on this “shift through neutral” stuff, it was only distinguishing over one singular reference (supposedly).
“How else does one get into reverse?”
There is no actual thing in reality that would necessitate a transmission not being able to shift directly from drive to reverse that I know of. It is technically possible to make such a transmission. See vid below, there is no reason why you couldn’t make (and the prior art may have already) a transmission that would go directly from drive to reverse with no neutral.
“I’m still waiting for somebody to reveal to me how “shifting through neutral” was identified in the patent application as filed as a feature of the inventive concept presented to the PTO on the filing date.”
Nobody is going to bother bro. Maybe there was in fact a WD issue. Nobody cares.
By the way this is one of the finest instructional videos on primitive transmissions ever to be made, all men should watch, and maybe even women as well.
link to youtube.com
Oh joy. 6, you made my day with your:
“Maybe there was in fact a WD issue. Nobody cares.”
At the EPO, the task given by the law to the Examiner is to make sure that all the conditions of patentability are met, before allowing a patent application. That there shall be a “written description” of the claimed subject matter in the application as filed is (unless I am sadly mistaken) a requirement of patentability in the USA. So why is it that, when there is indeed a WD issue “nobody cares”? Is that because, once they are granted, even by a dozy, free-wheeling and lackadaisical USPTO, patents are valid until somebody can adduce evidence to the contrary that is powerful enough to clear the C&C hurdle?
“So why is it that, when there is indeed a WD issue “nobody cares”?”
Because they’re not getting paid to care on PO. Berpa. That’s high dollar work, let some attorney do it for thousands.
OK, 6, that figures (even though Examination at the EPO for WD is intrinsically absurdly easy and quick).
Just one thing though: what does your “Berpa” mean. If I Google it I get “Bank Examination Report Privilege Act”.
Now I do understand that what a PTO Examiner produces is an Examination Report, but what have “Bank” and “Privilege” got to do with it? Does examining a patent application at the USPTO reach a level of complexity comparable with stress-testing an entire bank?
it’s half of “burpa derpa” usually spelled with a u. It’s just random ta rd and/or video game noises.
Max: “What I did find though is paragraph [0017] that announces what is the “essence” of the “invention”.
Also, as noted on the prior blog, “there is really no excuse for any U.S. P&P practitioner still, after so many years of Fed. Cir. decisions, using the words “the invention” or “the invention is” before or after “Background of,” or “Summary of..” [ in subtitles or otherwise] in a spec.” That is probably the most serious “poison word” for Fed. Cir. potential limiting of claim scope.
Some just never learn. In a just-decided Fed. Cir. appeal decision it appears that the patent drafter cost the patent owner a D.C. summary judgment and that appeal just to overcome a spec “The invention is ..” paragraph.
How is this different than what every driver does to shift from forward to reverse? You brake to a stop, shift through neutral to reverse, release the brake and drive in reverse.
Oh, I see: “wherein the step of activating the transmission includes using an on board electronic control unit whereby the method for emergency stopping of a motor vehicle is controlled by an on board electronic control unit”. And there are some sensors, which I think ABS already have.
Reminds me of the period immediately following State Street Bank when you could get a patent by claiming a known method of doing business, as long as you added the words “on the internet” to the claim.
Good luck enforcing this one.
Good luck enforcing this one.
+1
Reminds me of the period immediately following State Street Bank when you could get a patent by claiming a known method of doing business, as long as you added the words “on the internet” to the claim.
You have been reading too much from EFF. State Street came out in 1998, and I was practicing at that time. No examiner was going to be allowing “conventional process + do it on the internet” claims. This is about as simple a 103 rejection as one gets.
I guess when you repeat a falsehood over and over and over again it becomes the truth.
… the evidence that propaganda works (as if there were any doubts).
Which also calls for posts that may seem like an endless crusade, but the minute you let ‘the other side’ employ their false narrative without rebuttal, is the minute that you get others saying things like, “well, it was on Patently-O and none of the attorneys there said it was wrong, so it must be right.”
And before we drift off into the “well, sOmeone on the internet is wrong,” keep in mind that these are not just sOmeone, but instead are the “sAme ones” (you yourself are seeing a bit of this on another thread with Marty).
$$$
Thank you Shifty for the multi-payout – random old thread with an attempt to use my memes.
(you just cannot help yourself in your 0bsess10n over me, can you? – I think that your record is sta1 king me on 14 concurrent threads)
Thanks!!! Yet another admission!
[you may look up in Wikipedia the definition of “admission.”]
Not sure why you are thanking me – could you explain your reasoning?
On the other hand, I have explained many times now why I thank you for YOUR choices in YOUR posts. Are you jealous that I enterprise on YOUR choices?
Comments are closed.