Week 13: building upon my future

In this final blogpost, I want to talk about how this class will influence in the years to come.

I just talked about how this class did a very good job of giving an overall view of the patent industry. I believe I have a good understanding of the patent basics, the application process, and current problems and limitations.

In class we talked about how important it is to file a patent. Unfortunately, not everyone will have a strong foundation knowledge on patents, and this is where I think I can make a difference. Just like I have mentioned before, when companies go on "Shark Tank", one of the most frequently asked questions is "is this patented?". I would definitely be the one in my company to ensure that the answer to that question is a "yes".

As someone with a background knowledge in patents, I want to be the one who ensures my company's product safety through patent filing. And in the event that we are sued by a patent troll, I will know how to handle them because all the trolls are looking for are settlements to make money off of. From this class I also learned the value of open sourcing, and so I would suggest some things to be patented, while others would be good candidates for open sourcing to encourage faster development by larger groups of people.

I think that this class has honestly given me a great advantage when I get into the workforce. I will definitely value intelligence property more than my peers and I can use that to help myself and the company move forward.

Week 13: what I learned

In this blogpost, I want to summarize my learnings and take-aways from this class. I came into this class with minimal knowledge of patents, and really, I only knew the importance of them through the show "Shark Tank". However, after an entire semester of learning about different aspects of patents and the issues with them, I have built a good knowledge foundation of patents.

The lectures were very good at slowly going deeper into the subject. We started off with some general terms and distinguishing a patent with more mainstream and common terms such as copyright and trademark. We learned how to break down a patent application and analyze each part of the application. We learned what a patent really should constitute, for example, non-obviousness and novelty. We went over some patent evolutions such as the cup sleeve patents. It was really interesting to see patents being built on top of each other. But we also went over silly and ridiculous patents that made us question the usefulness and in some cases, safety, of the inventions. We also went over problems with the current patent system and the whole debate over the patent trolls.

In addition, some weeks we had guest speakers who brought in a different perspective from that of the professor's. And each speaker had his or her own specialty, which was very exciting to be part of. We also watched a couple TED talk videos that focused on patents and its capabilities and limitations.

Overall, I thought this class was a very well-balanced course on patents. It did a great job of introducing patents and what they are, and then provided several different aspects of patents through different people's perspectives. I definitely learned a lot and would encourage others to give this class a try.

Week 13: collaborative social media #2

In the last blogpost, I focused on blogposts and Twitter. This time, I want to comment on our YouTube work.

We had weekly YouTube videos relating to our blogposts. I thought this was a very creative combination because I used blogposts to gather my thoughts for the week and do the research but I used YouTube to build upon my blogposts. It was a place where after I have written down so much about a certain topic in the blogpost, I was able to get more creative and share more of my personal opinions. And just the nature of making videos on YouTube really enforced my learning because it was a different type of learning, one that I have never had experience with.

I used to have trouble with public speaking but after making weekly videos, I feel I have definitely gotten better at impromptu and public speaking. And in addition, we were also assigned to watch other's videos and comment on them. This idea of shared learning on YouTube was extremely effective for me. I learned a lot from watching other's videos because I paid attention to not only their content, but also the way they speak and present the video. YouTube comments were also a great way to share our thoughts with our classmates.

Overall, I thought YouTube was a very creative way to learn. I definitely reenforced my learning from class topics through the videos, but I also gained public speaking skills. And again, this social media platform was simply great for classmates to share ideas with each other and give each other feedback.

Week 13: collaborative social media #1

As the semester comes to an end, I am concluding my blogpost series with a reflection upon this entire semester. This class has been very different from my other classes because all assignments and homeworks are completed online through social media. We have weekly blogposts in this bloggger website, videos on YouTube, and tweets on Twitter.

I want to focus on blogposts for now. I thought this idea was quite effective because first of all, Tal made sure we felt that the blogpost was our own. What I mean by that is, we were able to customize it and really personalize it. As a result, I took my blogposts more seriously because it reflected upon who I am and my experiences in this class. Weekly blogposts made it really easy to consolidate my ideas and learnings of each week. The topics of each blogpost ranged every week. Some weeks were summaries and personal opinions on class PowerPoint presentations, and others were compilations of online research on a certain topic. Blogposts definitely helped me retain the knowledge because I spent time researching the material before compiling and writing it into a blogpost. And in addition to all this, it really promoted shared learning because we all had access to each other's blogposts and were able to comment on each other's writings.

Twitter was also a cool addition we had in the middle of the semester. It enforced the idea of shared learning because we were all able to read each other's tweets, which were usually quick opinions on class topics or interesting articles found online.

In this blogpost I focused on blogposts and tweets. I found these two platforms of social media not only helped me learn and retain knowledge better, but also encouraged heavy communication between classmates that further enhanced the learning experience.

Week 12: intellectual property #4

In this blogpost, I will summarize my online research in regards to the topic in the presentation.

I found this interesting article that listed 5 best practices for creating an IP strategy. I thought it would be cool to share it here.

1. File early for patents
New patent laws in the US are based off the "first to file" regime. Filing early is absolutely critical to getting your idea in first, and getting your patent underway as quickly as possible.

2. Control the distribution of your ideas
There is a difference between distributing non confidential information for feedback, as opposed to sharing the totality of your idea, including all the novel, patentable aspects of your innovation. Once your ideas have leaked into the public domain, you may never be able to patent them anywhere, as the idea is not considered novel anymore.

3. Own the process: don't leave it all to the lawyers
Understanding the filing process, working efficiently with the lawyers and creating a strategy and roadmap around filing patents are critical for getting the best return on investment.

4. Build an IP portfolio that increases your evaluation
The iP filling needs to be very strategic, creating the right balance of offensive and defensive goals while positioning the company to gain market share, enhancing valuation and positioning for funding, and increasing the likelihood of a successful exit.

5. Manage the risk of litigation
Having strong patent portfolio can provide ammunition to countersue the competitor, and in that regard, will make them think twice before suing you.

Week 12: intellectual property #3

In this blogpost, I will focus on IP strategy for growth.

Above is a chasm graph that illustrates the IP strategy lifecycle. The key here is that you want to build an IP portfolio to increase valuation. Your goals are: freedom to operate, block competitors, support future products, hedge against litigation, attract buyers & investors, monetization, liquidation value.

A strong IP portfolio supports the later stages after the chasm. Your sources of IP can come from internal R&D and filing patents, buying patents, or in-licensing (university, government labs, etc.).
As you can see from the graph, before the chasm is labeled as developing IP position. After that, you begin your IP commercialization and monetization. And eventually, portfolio liquidation.

It is important to keep in mind that IP strategy can determine a product's success, market share, and profitability. A failure to properly address IP issues can result in loss of market share, margin erosion, and reduced market competitiveness.

Week 12: intellectual property #2

In this blogpost, I will go more into the IP industry as explained in the presentation.

There are four major forces impacting the patent marketplace: the IP litigation is at an all time high, very active patent transaction markets, USPTO overloaded and underfunded, global competition is changing the iP playing field. As we all know, the US patent prosecution process is on a "first to file" basis.

In the current 21st century patent marketplace, there is an addition to simply IP creators and IP users. Now, IP creators are operating companies, independent inventors, universities, research institutions, government labs. There are intermediaries that include non practicing entities, patent funds / aggregators, market makers, and financial services. Finally, there are IP users which include operating companies and others.

I found really interesting the industry trends to watch in patent monetization. These include 3 main points.
1. enforcement business model is under attack - patent litigation declines for first time in 5 years
2. patent transactions slowing down - especially soft. patent; buying moved to China
3. focus shifting to validity

In the next blogpost I will talk about growth, but I included this one because it has a good overview of the current IP marketplace.

Week 12: intellectual property #1

In this week's blogposts, I will be talking about our guest speaker's topic: The role of intellectual property as a strategic business asset.

Just to start off, it is interesting to see that 80% of S&P 500 Market value is consisted of intangible assets. These can be patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, etc.

I actually learned how to differentiate the terms I just listed above. In the presentation, she says that copyrights are original works of authorship (and this can take any form of work) and it lasts author's life and 70 years. Trademarks is a word, name, symbol, or device used in trade to distinguish goods. Trade secrets are business items/information that are of economic value and are kept confidential. Patents are right to exclude others from making, using, or selling products covered by invention in a defined territory. Patent's life is 20 years from filing.

I thought the distinguishing definitions of each of these intangible assets really clarified my doubts and made the entire material more clear. It is definitely surprising that over 80% of the market value are laid in these secrets / patents. It makes sense when you think about it, especially in a largely growing tech industry.

Week 11: Ted talk #4

In this blogpost I will talk about Johanna Blakley's presentation on "Lessons from fashion's free culture".

In my opinion, I thought this was the most interesting and engaging presentation. So her presentation relates to the idea that many creative industries are shackled by patents and copyrights, however, there is one that remains different: fashion. Counterintuitively, this has been great for this industry.

She says that fashion's intellectual property only goes as far as trademarking. It is very common for designers to build upon each other's ideas. And like we all know, fashion is very fast paced and constantly moving forward. Designers have to come up with new fashion trends for each season every year.

She mentions how top quality brands like Gucci aren't concerned with others copying their style because the end consumer is different. Those who shop at Gucci is there for a specific reason, and those who shop at H&M with knock-off styles are there because they are a different set of customers.

She then goes to argue that people think fashion can survive without patents because it is a low earning industry. However, when she pulled a chart of top grossing industries, the top ones are all without patent controls, and way at the bottom are technology and other industries that are heavily patented.

I simply thought this presentation was extremely interesting and it was very cool to learn about fashion and viewing it in a different light.

Weel 11: Ted talk #3

In this blogpost I will talk about Beth Noveck's presentation on "Demand a more open-source government".

As the former deputy CTO at the White House, Beth Noveck thinks that a government should call upon its citizens to share their expertise for the sake of better governance.

She gives an example of how in the past, a single person in the US Patent Office has had the authority to bestow a patent. However, with the new Peer-to-Patent system, anyone can weigh on applications, including those who have a deeper base of knowledge in a field.

Although we haven't yet seen what this type of governance may look like, we have made small steps towards open-source government. From the projects overseas to simply hackathons, we see the power of people contributing together in government.

Opening up government data can definitely lead to more innovative and useful applications where this data can be used for an interesting use.

I definitely agree with her viewpoint here, because more minds to a common problem can only bring more ideas and better improvements. This is the key idea behind working in group projects at school: students from different backgrounds with similar knowledge can each share their ideas to jointly create something amazing.

Week 11: Ted talk #2

In this blogpost I will be going over Drew Curtis' presentation on "How I beat a patent troll".

He first defines patent troll. It is a term given to anyone who files a patent for something already being done, and then sues the people already doing it.

He explains that his company was sued for violating a patent for "news releases via email". He says that his company deals with news, and they were being sued for it. However, news releases at the time only referred to press releases and printed forms of media, which did not include email.

He says that the average troll defense can cost $2 million and take over 18months (if you win). This is why most companies settle during a patent lawsuit, even though most of the companies did not infringe on the patent. The point to settle is that it will be much less cheaper this way and less time consuming.

However, he was persistent about pressing on the lawsuit. He made the patent troll provide proof and replied no settlement to the patent troll's offer of a settlement.

One of the key takeways here is that infringement is much easier to prove than a patent. And that it is important to make it clear that either a) your company has no money at all or b) you would rather spend all that money with a lawyer and pressing on the lawsuit charges. He says that patent trolls' end goal is a settlement, because they make money by taking a percentage from the settlement. However, when a settlement cannot be reached, they are less incentivized to press on.

Week 11: Ted talk #1

In these next few blogposts, I will be talking about the TED talks we watched in class. The videos can be found here: http://blog.ted.com/6-talks-about-problems-with-patents/

I will be talking about t'Hoen's presentation on pool medical patents.

Years ago, the cost for HIV drug cocktails was about $12,000 per person per year — meaning that people in wealthy countries had access to them while those in the developing world did not. India, however, did not recognize medical patents at the time and companies there began producing generic formulations. Because of so much supply of these drugs, the cost dropped to $350 per patient per year. As a result, many lives were saved and more medication were available. 

However, in 1995, the Word Trade Organization instituted new rules, calling for all countries to ensure 20-year patents for new medications. Since then, the number of patents in the area of ARVs (or the area that cures HIV) has skyrocketed.

t'Hoen then goes on to talk about her own solutions and ideas. I really liked her views on this issue. The idea she presents here is quite interesting. It led me to think that maybe some industries shouldn't have patents.

Week 10 #4: silly patents 4

In this blog post I will be talking about the newborn infant art patent.

At first I was very confused about what this patent actually is. It seems like it is just a patent on a drawing board that allows the infant to paint. Turns out, the patent is exactly that! The patent says "the addition of a newborn infant to a family inspires feelings of nostalgia and the related desire to create a lasting remembrance of the child's infancy".

Essentially, this is a paint kit for kids and parents who miss the idea of painting. The patent was awarded in 2000, and I was very confused as to why it would be patented. This is simply a drawing board and it is essentially patenting the idea of people wanting to paint after having a baby?

I thought the patent was also very obvious because it provides nothing new. Both the paint and the drawing board were already prior arts and so I can't imagine how this could possibly be an innovative, yet needed invention.

This is my last blogpost on the idea of silly patents, and sure enough, it made me realize how many ridiculous patents there are out there. This assignment definitely opened my eyes.

Week 10 #3: silly patents 3

In this blogpost, I will be talking about the patent of a helmet that only shields the back side of your head.

As you can see from the picture, the helmet does not shield anything on the front, only on the back.

The patent says "most types of protective head gear or helmets cover and protect the entire or majority of the user's head. For many activities that require protection of the head, maximum protection is desirable. However, there are some activities where only some protection is desired".

I was very confused by this patent because it says "some activities" only require partial protection. And judging from the picture, the guy is skateboarding, which requires maximum protection of the head. The picture is misleading because it made it seem like you are completely safe when falling backwards, however, skateboarding could easily make you fall face forward.

The helmet ultimately can only shield you if you fall backwards. And in terms of protection, normal helmets also protect you on a backward fall. This patent was very obvious because it just took a normal helmet and shifted it downwards on your head. Additionally, it is very unsafe and unnecessary, as standard helmets already do a better job of what it tries to accomplish.

Week 10 #2: silly patents 2

In this blogpost I will be talking about Be the Bike patent.

As you can see from the picture, the patent name pretty much explains it. The patent says "the body of the rider acts as a connecting means between the front and rear roller assemblies and allows high performance riding, exercise, and competition".

The first thing I thought of when I saw this was how dangerous this could be. For one, this requires incredible amount of stabilizing muscles in your body because you want to keep yourself in that position the entire ride no matter what kind of road you are going through. If your body stretches just a little bit too far, it would be incredibly difficult to get yourself back up. Even in a regular bike, people find it hard to balance themselves during bumpy roads because it requires a lot of strength.

Also I noticed how since there were no pedals, this could only work downhill or if the parts were motorized. Given that it is a motorized means of transportation, it would also be extremely dangerous because there is no safe way for you to stop in case of an emergency. If you fall, then you would be rolling over yourself in high speed and could easily break your bones.

Overall, although this patent might be non obvious, I think it is way beyond what we can truly use to roam the streets. This means of transportation would create so much liability and be extremely dangerous for the average user.

Week 10 #1: silly patents #1

In this blogpost I will be talking about the Quick Draw Call patent.

As you can see from the picture, this patent that was awarded in 2004 is a strap that holds your phone on your wrist. When you want to "store" your phone, it rests on your wrist. However, when you want to use it, you can push it out to your palm and use the phone. 

The actual patent says: "no one of the devices actually known allows the possibility of quickly and easily setting the cellular telephone to its use condition and then as well quickly and easily setting it back to rest". 

My personal thoughts on this patent is that I guess at first, this does look kind of cool. Its like how magicians hide cards in their sleeves. However, the more I look at it, the more I would not appreciate it and found flaws. 

I do admit that it would be a very easy and quick way of accessing and "storing" your phone. But I do put quotes around "store" because the way it is stored in the picture would be terrible for me. It would be way too inconvenient to have a phone hanging around my wrist all the time, especially with the huge phone screen size trends lately. 

In addition, I also do not see a need for pulling and storing your phone in such quick speeds. I do not need to constantly check my phone back and forth. And even if it was to shorten the amount of time needed when I get a call, I have a good 15 seconds to reach my phone before the call drops. 

Overall I think this patent was very unnecessary and quite obvious. It is simply a strap on your wrist that can hold a phone. People are already reluctant to have smart watches and bulky wrist watches, so I couldn't imagine what would make them want to wear this.

Week 9 #2: patent troll bill renewal

In this blogpost I will be going over the patent troll bill that was renewed earlier this February.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman brought up a bill that targets abusive practices by companies that buy up patents for the purpose of extracting settlements, otherwise known as patent trolls.

He emphasized that the legislation is meant to target abuse, not specific entities. And he has the support of several technology companies, retailers, and restaurant associations.

One of the key things in this bill is that it would limit the amount of discovery necessary. This means that this could remove a tool used by the trolls to run up the costs of litigation in order to extract a settlement. The bill calls on the Judicial Conference of US to come up with rules to allow for additional discovery if the party making the request pays the cost.

The entire legislation passed 325-91 in the congress. Reading about this article made me realize how big of an issue patent troll is and I am glad that the government is taking good measures to cut these trolls. The votes in the congress really portray the one-sided argument here, which is that patent trolls are abusive and deserve to be more closely monitored.

Week 9 #1: patent troll example against Google and Motorola

In this blog post I will be giving an example of a patent troll case that occurred a little over a year ago.

Patent trolls are everywhere, and one of the biggest one is called Intellectual Ventures. This was a case against Motorola, which was owned by Google. It claimed that Motorola's phone displays, software update system, and other elements infringe on six of Intellectual Venture's thousands of patents.

Meanwhile, Intellectual Ventures claims itself as an "invention marketplace", because it buys up massive amounts of intellectual property and licenses it in bulk. Over the years, as the company built up its portfolio of patents, it became more of a threat than a help.

So in this case, if Google and Motorola wanted to win the case, they would have to convince a jury either that they are not infringing Intellectual Venture's patents, or that those patents are invalid. This could be a long and expensive process, as the court would have to determine what the patents mean and how they can be applied. If Intellectual Venture's patents define a software update tool in terms that don't match with Motorola's system, or if the steps it describes are obvious that anyone could think of them, then IV loses.

This example just made me think more about patent trolls, and how even though the government may be trying to cut them down, there are still giants out there who are targeting the largest tech companies in the industry.

Week 8 #4: patent troll cases & info

In this blogpost I will talk a little bit more about patent trolls and how they are affecting our society now.

As I was researching the topic of patent trolls, I came across this study published by UC Hastings and Lex Machina, who analyzed about 13,000 cases spanning about 30,000 patents. What they concluded was that about 56 percent of the patent-related lawsuits filed in the U.S. in 2012 were filed by patent monetization entities. In an earlier blogpost, I introduced patent monetization entities as patent trolls, who are people or companies that license patents but doesn't actually have any business involving the patent.

This puts small companies, particularly startups, at a disadvantage because they cannot easily tell if a patent has been asserted and what territory is being claimed by the patent holder. As a result, tech companies like Google, Blackberry and others are asking the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice to scrutinize NPEs who are hurting consumers and businesses.

I found the top 10 businesses targeted by patent trolls in 2013, which in order are AT&T, Google, Verizon, Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Dell, Sony, Huawei, and Blackberry.

Week 8 #3: patent infringement lawsuit

In this blogpost, I will focus on patent infringement lawsuits. I found this topic very interesting and wanted to share it here.

So how does a patent infringement lawsuit begin? Well it begins with a filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by the patent holder. The holder must have a "complaint" document and a "summons" document.

In response to this, you can contact an attorney familiar with patents to assist and help you decide on the best course of action. Otherwise, you can choose to deny the proof that the patent owner has provided, negotiate with the owner for a settlement of the lawsuit (which involves agreeing to a license or a statement that you do not infringe the patent), or try to invalidate the patent based on references that show the patent is invalid.

So in order to determine whether you are truly infringing a patent, you should know that the accused must perform each and every element of one or more of its claims, or actively encourage, sell or offer to sell a component that leads to another's infringement.

I thought this information was interesting and important in the event that I ever get filed for patent infringement. I would definitely want to know the procedure and whether or not I am infringing in the first place.

Week 8 #2: patent infringement

In this blogpost I will be talking about patent infringement. After introducing this, I can go further into specific cases of patent infringement in the next blogposts.

So what is patent infringement? It is the act of making, using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention, or importing into the US a product covered by a claim of a patent without the permission of the patent owner. In addition, those who encourage others to infringe patents, or supplying or importing components of a patented invention, and related acts can also give rise to liability in certain cases.

A patent owner can then sue you in federal court. If the owner is able to prove infringement, then the court may order you to pay monetary damages and/or stop infringing one or more patent claims. Otherwise, the court may conclude that the patent claim is not valid due to invention being disclosed in other sources or offered for sale.

As we all know, the consequences of a patent infringement can be quite harsh. In an earlier post I talked about Apple v. Samsung, which dealt with patent infringement. The result of this case were millions of dollars in damages. So I will definitely watch out for patent infringement in the future.

Week 8 #1: patent trolls

In this blogpost, I'll be going over a brief overview of a patent troll.

A patent troll is considered a derogatory term to describe people or companies that misuse patents as a business strategy.
Essentially, a patent troll obtains the patents beings sold at auctions by bankrupt companies attempting to liquidate their assets, or by doing just enough research to prove they had the idea first. They can then launch lawsuits against infringing companies, or simply hold the patent without planning to practice the idea in an attempt to keep other companies productivity at a standstill.

Just by doing my initial research on patent trolls, I had a very negative feeling towards them. They seem to discourage innovation and serve only a single purpose to hurt other companies. Trolls are sometimes also known as non practicing entities, which means that their sole purpose is to hold a patent (without using it for products or services) and then sue other companies for money.

In the next few blogposts I will also be talking more about infringement, trolls, and patent litigations.

Assignment 7b: Video Clip #2 (for 3 units)

Below is a summary and personal thoughts on the video about prior art search.

This is where you can find inventions in the prior art, otherwise defined as the information available to the public that can be found in a printed publication format. These can be in a variety of places such as magazines, books, Internet, patents, published patent applications, and others.

So a prior art search is an attempt to find your invention in all the above prior art source locations as described above. We are searching for prior art in a printed publication format, which consist of the sources described and many others.

This step to Obviousness is crucial because you need to know whether your invention is obvious or not. And a way to determine that is to see what has already been filed and see if your invention has made a novel leap from what has already been created. It is very important to do the prior art search otherwise the patent office will do it themselves and if results come out to be obvious, then your patent may be up for rejection.

Assigment 7b: Video Clip #1

Below is a summary and my personal thoughts on the video that is embedded.

If a prior art search of your invention shows obviousness, then you will require the assistance of a patent practitioner to help overcome the finding of obviousness.

Consider a venn diagram. It consists of two circles. If the two circles don't overlap, that means the two circles pertain to different sets, or in other words, they are different and non-obvious.
The video says that if at any point, your circle (which is your invention) completely overlaps with the circle of all known things and inventions, then your invention is "already known" and therefore, obvious.

The idea of the venn diagram is then applied to the prior art search, where your invention is compared to inventions that were previously filed. At this point, if your patent is deemed obvious, you would have to provide arguments to the patent office to overcome the rejection of the invention.

Assignment 7a: Thoughts on Obviousness (#2 for 3 units)

Here I will further talk about the subject of Obviousness.

There are five basic requirements for patentability: Subject matter requirement, written description, utility, novelty, non-obviousness.

The whole idea behind non-obviousness is that it taps into multiple sources of prior art and makes sure that a person with ordinary skills would not have easily thought of the invention that is trying to get patented. The key here is that it needs to be novel, and that given previous prior art, this invention should shed a new light or bring in something new.

Also, Title 35 USC Section 103 helps one to argue whether a patent is obvious or not. It says: A patent may not be obtained through the invention if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

Lastly, I just wanted to talk about the TSM test, which says that there must be a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art to combine elements in the prior art in order to find a patent obvious.

Assignment 7a: My opinions on Obviousness

This post will be about my personal understanding from research on the subject of Obviousness.

There are a couple things that are important and come into play:

First thing is that it has to be novel. One must conduct a prior art search because you want to make sure your idea is novel and that it has not been filed as a patent beforehand. And just as a good general thing to do, one should do these searches in order to gain a better understanding of the patent field.

Second part is the part that pertains more to your invention. This part focuses on making sure that your invention is non-obvious, or in other words, the invention needs a little bit more unexpectedness than just an obvious change to the original product / idea. Good rule of thumb here is that your invention must be non-obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of your invention. Something that I learned was that there are patent attorneys who will help you determine whether your invention is obvious or non-obvious because there is a blurred line here and many people are confused about it.

Obviousness can also be determined by looking at prior art. Looking at similar products in the prior art search can help one determine whether there was a non-obvious leap in the new invention.

Assignment 5 for 3 units (Elaborating on 2 select patents)

In this post I will select two specific patents from a previous post and go more indepth in the analysis. I will target anticipation for one of the patents and obviousness for another. I will also be analyzing each patent's Claim #1.

Anticipation:

Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container

I thought this invention was great because it took what we had before (which are insulating sleeves that protect users from the hot/cold contents in the beverage) and took it to the next level. What I mean is that with the insulating sleeve being great for the grip and all, the next step is to know whether the hot/cold drinks could damage our tongue or inside of our mouth.
That's where the temperature indicator comes into play, because now that we have our outer variables controlled and safe, we want to make sure that the contents don't damage our mouths. It is a great invention that has built up from other inventions.
The claim in this invention says that the invention is a container body with a known insulating factor, a detachable sleeve with a known insulating factor, and a temperature indicator that is able to indicate the temperature or a range of temperatures to the user.

Obviousness:

Protective sleeve

I thought this invention was rather obvious in my opinion because it only slightly changes from the insulating sleeves that were previously patented and made. This one focuses on the design of the sleeve, specifically the arch. I do agree that the arch was a great idea and that it definitely saved on sheet material, but I also think that any regular manufacturer of previous sleeves could have seen this and made the design changes themselves.
As opposed to the patent I talk about above, this one is more obvious to me and requires less engineering/prior knowledge. Nevertheless, I'm glad it's here because the reduction in material must be tremendous.
The claims focus on the geometry and design of the sleeve. The claims mainly talk about the design and then it goes into manufacturing of the sleeves, mainly on the material and methods for manufacturing.

Personal view of the insulator cup patents

Hi guys, this is a post regarding my personal view on the list of patents I went through in the previous post.

Anticipation
This part relates to novelty. The patents listed in the previous post all have some kind of novelty to them, and that's why each got their own patent. Every patent's background found a current issue with the cups / sleeves and found a better or different way of solving problems.
The anticipation in many cases are design, but some are also the insulation and the technology behind everything.
Personally, I found interesting to see the different models of sleeves and was certainly amazed at how many patents are out there for just a sleeve. I thought a sleeve was a very mindless invention that is just a piece of paperboard, but in reality, there's quite a lot of engineering that goes into the invention.

Obviousness
This part relates to whether these patents are the same as one another. We can clearly see that each iteration of the sleeve patent seeks to create a better product, whether in functionality or design for the sleeve and the insulator cup. However, after all, all these patents are aimed at one simple thing which is an insulator sleeve.
As a result, the patents don't deviate too much from each other. But I still think that the little things matter, so even though they may not seem to be very different, each serves its own purpose and aims to achieve a different goal.
As I mentioned earlier, I never knew so much thought was put into an insulator sleeve, but after reading about them and further thinking and analyzing about them definitely opened my eyes. Personally, I thought this assignment was very interesting.

Summary of Patents and Applications on Hot Beverage Container Sleeves

This will be a summary of 6 patents and 3 applications. Here we go:

1) Insulating sleeve - US 6343735 B1
Background: There is a need for a insulating sleeve because hot liquid can lead to a faster heat transfer and thus create an uncomfortable temperate in the surface of the cup where users hold. The sleeve aims to have two ridges that allow for better gripping and insulation from the contents in the cup.

Priority date: May 4, 2000

Technology: A cup sleeve that has ridges for better gripping. The sleeve can be folded and has small triangular holes that act as an insulator for the cup. Idea is that users will then use the sleeve and grip the cup on the sleeve.

Specifications: Made from a paperboard material. The folds create the insulator triangle holes in the sleeve.

Diagrams:

Claims: Claim 4 goes into detail about how the sleeve can also be used in a larger diameter cup. Claim 5 talks about the sleeve with open and close setups where one is for using and the other for packaging.

2) Thermal coffee cup - US 2661889 A
Background: An insulated coffee cup that has insulation so that the user's hand is not affected by the heat of the hot beverage inside the cup.

Priority date: July 20, 1948

Technology: It is a conical shaped insulator for a cup. The cup has an inner, middle, and outer layer. The middle layer is sealed at the top and bottom so that air cannot escape.

Specifications: Outer layer conical sleeve can also hold the cap of the coffee cup. Paired with inner layer technology.

Diagrams:

Claims: The inner layer is corrugated to allow for air insulator. The bottom is sealed and at the top, the coffee cup cap is placed. 

3) Thermal sleeve - US 8,251,277 B1
Background: Cup sleeves allows for an insulation when there are hot beverages in the cup and user's are trying to grip onto the cup. This invention has a less of environmental impact as opposed to using multiple cups to create that layer that insulates the heat.

Priority date: April 15, 2005

Technology: The cup sleeve on the outside is made from rigid paper and the inside is from smooth paper. The patent constitutes of using this thermal sleeve when used with a cup. The cup can also be disposable as it is made from paperboard, foam, etc.

Specifications: outer layer is made of crepe paper and the inside layer is made of smooth paper. The two layers are put together using adhesive.

Diagrams: 

Claims: The cup sleeve has an inner and outer layer which each has their own specific details on being made. The cup sleeve also is part of a system which constitutes of the sleeve and the cup itself. 

4) Insulator sleeve for beverage container - US 7,922,031 B1 
Background: These sleeves are transparent and made from heat insulating material. These sleeves are typically used to insulate the user's hand from hot beverage contents. 

Priority date: March 1, 2006

Technology: The sleeve has inner and outer portion. The outer portion is an erasable writing area and the inner is a heat insulating layer. The idea is that traditional sleeves can only be used a finite number of times, but this one tries to change that.

Specifications: The erasable area can be used to be written on by a pen or a material used by the person. And the heat insulating layer is made of a silicon rubber material. 

Diagrams:

Claims: The claims go through the invention and the specifications of both inner and outer layers. The claims focus on the design that is incorporated in the sleeve.

5) Temperatur-indicating sleeve - US 8118189 B1
Background: Users don't know how hot the liquid inside is, so this invention aims to indicate the temperature on the outer surface of the container. 

Priority date: December 15, 2006

Technology: The invention uses a temperature sensitive indicator on the sleeve wall. The indicator will display the temperature of the contents inside the cup.

Specifications: The temperature indicator is calibrated with known insulating properties to accurately display the temperature or a range of temperatures of the contents.

Diagrams:

Claims: The invention is described as a container body with a known insulating factor, a detachable sleeve, and a temperature indicator. The claims go into the types of temperature indicators, placement, materials, and designs.

6) Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation - US 6152363
Background: This invention aims to incorporate a sleeve cup that can have air gap while using a smooth outside surface for printing. Typical sleeves use paperboard and use hot-melt glue dots to increase insulation.

Priority date: May 3, 1999

Technology: Thermal sleeve made by a paperboard sleeve. One side is smooth and another is used for creating the air-gap using hot -glue dots or syntactic foam.

Specifications: There are predetermined length and heights of the sleeve cutouts. Air gap between the cup and sleeve is created using syntactic foam or hot-glue dots.

Diagrams: 

Claims: The invention focuses on one side being smooth and the other can be a number of different things as long as it creates the air gap between the cup and the sleeve. Such means can be hot-glue dots or syntactic foam.

7) Beverage cup sleeving system - US 20080078824 A1
Background: The invention is a system for sleeving a cup with a layer of elastomer where the insulating sleeve is reusable and washable. Typical sleeves are ineffective when wet or when the beverage is too hot.

Priority date: August 23, 2006

Technology: The layer is made of elastomer. This creates a homogenous seamless conical sleeve.

Specifications: the sleeve can also have versions where it is made from an elastomeric or fabric composites.

Diagrams:

Claims: The invention can be a basic elastomer cup sleeve. There can also be temperature sensing indicators in the sleeve. But this sleeve can also be made from different materials as seen from the specifications.

8) Protective sleeve - US 20100019023 A1
Background: The invention is a sleeve with an unique arch shape to allow for comfortable gripping on the cup when it is filled with hot or cold beverages. 

Priority date: July 25, 2008

Technology: A insulating sleeve that can be made from a flat piece of sheet material with a shape resembling that of an arch.

Specifications: The arch is used in order to reduce sheet material during manufacturing. Otherwise, the sleeve is made to have insulating properties.

Diagrams:

Claims: The claims go into the design of the invention, specifically the arch that is designed to conserve sheet material. The claims also go into how this sleeve can be made from other select materials.

9) Hot and Cold Cup sleeve - US 20140151385 A1
Background: Coffee shops need a thin and inexpensive sleeve that insulates the heat/cold of the cup from the user.

Priority date: February 6, 2014

Technology: inner part is water-absorbent and the outer layer is water repellent. The adhesive is a polyethylene laminate film.

Specifications: The adhesive put together the inner and outer layers. The inner layer is very absorbent, while the outer is a repellant. 

Diagrams: 

Claims: The claims detail the components of the sleeve, and how each component is manufactured and with the specified materials. Each component have its design laid out. 

Samsung v. Apple

Summary of the case:

Apple filed suit against Samsung on 2011 saying that it has copied Apple's look and feel of its iPhones and iPads. Apple had nine-person jury on its side so it was awarded $1.05 billion in damages.

In 2012, Apple filed suit against Samsung agains saying that it was infringing several patents. It said that Samsung was copying its technology and products, features, and designs. Samsung however countered with a suit saying that Apple is trying to hurt competition by targeting it for litigation. It also claims Apple has infringed some of its patents.

In this suit, it has been found that a lot of the items that Apple claim as infringed items are part of Android, or Google's mobile OS. The reason why Apple doesn't sue Google is because Google itself doesn't make its own phones or tablets, so it would rather take on a rival that sells physical devices using Android. Samsung will also argue that Google had invented the features before Apple patented them.

So there were seven patents at issue in this case. Five held by Apple and two by Samsung. The trial came to an end last year May 5th. And as for the winner of the case, there isn't a clear one. This time around, the judges didn't allow for damage fines as large as the $1 billion from 2011. Both companies had to pay each other a set of fines.

Slide to Unlock Patent Claim #1

In Claim #1 of the Slide to Unlock patent filed by Apple, the following is discussed.

Claim 1 talks about the "method" of the slide-to-unlock function:

First, the user makes contact with the slide-to-unlock image on the screen. It senses the individual making contact with a specific image on the display.
Then, the user moves the unlock image (a graphical and interactive object) in the direction that the image points to. 
The screen can then be unlocked as the user maintains contact with the image throughout the full process of sliding across the display. This constitutes of keeping touch from the first predefined location to the predefined location of the end of swipe.

As we can see here, the purpose of claim #1 is to talk about the image and how it creates the unlocking process for the user. It emphasizes how the user must interact with it and follow a predefined set of instructions in order for the phone to be unlocked. Although the instruction is not hard at all, it must be completed for the unlocking effect. 

The claim delineates the process of "slide to unlock" from both a user and technological point of view. 

Researched Top 5 Predictions

Below are some predictions that I found very interesting and could relate to. Like I mentioned in the previous post, these predictions can teach us that we are living in an ever-changing world. What seems like the norm or a known fact today, could be thrown out and disproved tomorrow. I have included my reasoning for each of the predictions below.


Grandchildren of the television age won’t be able to read. TIME
Drill for Oil? You mean drill into ground to try and find oil? You're crazy. 
No surgeon will ever operate on the heart or brain.

This was posted when the television first became popular. It is a great example of the media overreacting to a piece of technology that will change the world forever. As more households could afford a TV, critics were skeptical of its success and uses.

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere. New York Times
I am firm believer in humans being able to reach Mars within my lifetime. As a result, I found this prediction very relatable. I am glad that humans have already reached the moon and made huge advancements for our way to Mars. 

I think this was a very interesting prediction because the world we live in right now is very revolved around oil. World politics are greatly influenced by the possession of oil, and the top companies in the world today are oil companies. Oil has become a resource that we kind of overlook to becoming extremely valuable.

You better get secretarial work or get married.
This was a quote said to Marilyn Monroe. It is not really a prediction, but it does demonstrate the view of women people had back in the day. To them, women could not do the same work as men did. However today, women have become presidents and achieved great lengths.

I found this interesting because there is a whole field in medicine that deals with heart and brain surgery. And this field has saved so many lives that I can't imagine how it would be without it. 

Top 25 Predictions - My Top 5 and Thoughts

Below are the top 5 predictions from the list of 25 we went over in class. Although all of the predictions were somewhat comical to read because we are reading them 100-200 years after they were written, I chose these because they particularly stuck out to me. I will explain my logic and reasoning for each. 

23.) "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." – Western Union internal memo, 1876

I chose this one because it demonstrates how far technology and humans have come. In 1876, telephones were definitely not as nearly as advanced as they are today, but its incredible to think that telephones have become such a staple item in our lives. 

21.) "Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia." – Dr. Dionysius Lardner, 1830

This one specifically targets at how science has developed over the years. This quote reminds me of how humans today are doubtful about reaching Mars. Technology can go great lengths.

20.) "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." – Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

This quote was very ironic to me so I had to choose it. You would think that the chairman of if not the biggest computer company during that time would have more faith in his product. Maybe there was a market of 5 for the computers they were building at the time, but he has to think ahead and imagine improved models.

13.) "If excessive smoking actually plays a role in the production of lung cancer, it seems to be a minor one." – -W.C. Heuper, National Cancer Institute, 1954

Similar to the previous quote, I chose this one because it came from a representative at the National Cancer Institute. Fast forward to today, it is common knowledge that smoking directly correlates to lung cancer.

10.) “ There will never be a bigger plane built." – - A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

This quote reflects how humans should not be narrow-minded and feel easily pleased. This Boeing engineer definitely achieved a huge feat, but we should all know that this is just a new beginning. This first plane just opened a whole new field for humans and it is wrong for him to simply state an end to it. 

Importance of Patents (part of assignment #3)

Hi everyone,

I am taking this class for 3 units so here is my additional blog post for Assignment #3.

I just wanted to add a little personal experience on the topic of patents.
So I sometimes watch SharkTank, a TV show on ABC, where representatives of a startup (usually the founders) give a pitch of their company and their product to a panel of 5 extremely successful investors. These investors include Kevin O'Leary and Mark Cuban.

I personally find this show very entertaining because I get to see new products that other people design, and how these top notch investors think when they see something new. It has taught me to be more critical of items, and more importantly, how to pinpoint problems to criticize.

There are a number of inventions and startups who present at the show and get funding. However, there are also those who get rejected. And what I have found is that these investors always ask one main thing when a new invention is presented: "is this patented?". This question made me realize that when you know you have created something amazing, it is so crucial to get a patent. It is an extremely important factor in maintaining your competitive advantage. Investors want to see something unique, something that cannot be easily replicated. Patents will ensure this safety the investors need.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, China is a country that lacks this respect for patents. We all know that Chinese products are known to be fake. We know that companies in the West looking for expansion sometimes avoid China, because they know the chances of the Chinese replicating their product is extremely high. I hope China will in the future develop into a society that do respect patents. It is not fair for the inventor to have spent so much time on something and just have it replicated the next day, for maybe at even a cheaper price.

Overall, I hope my personal experience with patents will only further drive my interest in this class.

Updated Top 10 Inventions

Below are my updated list of top 10 inventions. I gathered ideas from other students in my class and I found myself to agree with a lot of their ideas, and how I have overlooked a number of extremely important inventions in our lives. The inventions are listed in no particular order of preference. 

1. Airplane
Airplanes have changed the way we travelled for hundreds of years. It was a huge leap forward in the transportation field. Truly gave meaning to "we live in a small world". 

2. Rocket
Rockets allowed us to explore outside Earth's boundaries. It allowed us to reach the moon, and maybe one day, Mars. We should always shoot for the stars. 

3. Digital Camera
Digital camera was a huge leap in the camera industry. This invention proved that even the incumbent giant Kodak couldn't survive. 

4. 3D Printer
3D printing changed the world of manufacturing. Although this invention has only picked up in the recent years, it poses a huge threat to existing manufacturing technologies. 

5. Personal computer
Personal computers revolutionized the computer industry. It paved a way for the world we live in today. Additionally, Apple's focus on customer experience also has shown its value and companies today operate under similar standards. 

6. Internet
The Internet brought the world together in a different way the airplanes did. It allowed for information across the globe to be distributed and accessed. As we move into the Internet of Things, more and more things in our lives will be connected to this invention. 

7. Cement

This changed the way we construct things. We can use cement to mold things into shape, thus creating huge structures such as skyscrapers. It made construction easier and less time consuming. 

8. Irrigation

Irrigation is an extremely important ancient invention. With irrigation, humans were able to move away from rivers and bodies of water and move more inland. By altering the direction of water, humans could now grow crops inland. It changed agriculture. 

9. Semiconductor

This is essential to the construction of electrical equipment. This is the building block of most technological advances, and without this invention, most of the things we use today would not exist.

10. Vaccination

The vaccination was a huge health field invention. It allowed for humans to survive diseases and it contributes largely to the reason why humans have survived on Earth for so long. It helps us fight diseases and germs that would otherwise decimate the human population.