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.
This post definitely opened my eyes. Wow.
ReplyDeleteHey Eric,
ReplyDeleteI also came across this patent in my research and thought it was hilarious!
Good job looking into the patent in terms of obviousness and innovation. It is true that there are way too many silly patents out there! haha
Hi Eric,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis in terms of obviousness and why this patent should be considered invalid. I just don't see how this patent demonstrates any qualities of uniqueness and like you stated, this is simply patenting the prior arts already in place. This is absolutely ridiculous and should not be a patent whatsoever.