« The Flawed Nature of the False Marking Statute | Main | Ex Parte Reexamination Pendency »
Jul 03, 2009
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Search & Share
Subscribe
Patently-O is the most popular patent law blog and a daily read for over fifteen thousand patent law professionals from every major innovative corporation, IP Law Firm and world patent office. Click the link above to receive an automatic Patently-O e-mail each morning with the freshest posts.
Recent Posts
- Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- Vacatur: Judge Posner Agrees to Vacate Inequitable Conduct Holding Based on Settlement Agreement
- Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Design Patents: Mueller & Brean
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes: New Job Openings
- Design Patents: Functionality and a Trade Dress Gap Filler
- A Brief Defense of the Written Description Requirement
- Nov 13, 2009 2:32:53 PM
- Tafas v. Kappos: Cleaning Up
- Survey of the Disruptive Impact of a First-to-File Switch
- Precedential BPAI Opinion Rejects Functional Claim Elements as Indefinite and Not Enabled
- Red Hat on Patents (VIDEO)
- Kappos Blog & First-to-File
- Bilski v. Kappos: Supreme Court Arguments
- Supreme Court Hears Bilski v. Kappos
- Business Method Patents: Technological Change, Not Judicial Activism
- Stays Pending Appeal
- Patent Prosecution Tips: Drafting Preambles
- Patently-O Bits and Bytes
- Abandoning software patents?
- Trademark Cancellation: Presumption of Validity includes Presumption of Acquired Distinctiveness for Marks Registered under Section 2(f)
- Federal Circuit: When are Subsidiaries Covered in a License Agreement?
- Challenging the Constitutionality of Gene Patents: Ass'n for Medical Pathology v. USPTO
- Stays Pending Reexamination
- Supreme Court Clustering of Patent Cases
- Mayo v. Prometheus: Medical Methods and Patentable Subject Matter at the Supreme Court
- Bits and Bytes
Categories
- Academic Studies
- Accelerated Examination
- All Elements
- Amicus Brief
- Anticipation
- Articles and Publications
- Attorney Fees
- Best Mode
- Bits and Bytes
- Blogroll
- Book Review
- BPAI
- Business Developments
- CAFC
- Certificate of Correction
- Chemical
- Claim Construction
- Claim Drafting Tips
- Conference or CLE
- Contributory Infringement
- Damages
- Declaratory Judgment
- Design Patent
- Dissent
- District Court
- Doctrine of Equivalents
- EFiling
- En Banc
- Enablement
- Fees
- First Sale / Exhaustion
- Gaming
- Graham Factors
- Guest Post
- Indefinite
- Inducement
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Interference
- Invalidity
- Inventors
- Inventorship
- ITC
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm Practice
- Lear Doctrine
- License
- Local Rules
- Means Plus Function
- Medical Device
- Method Claims
- Motivation to Combine
- Obviousness
- On Sale
- Patent Cases 2004
- Patent Cases 2005
- Patent Cases 2006
- Patent Cases 2007
- Patent Cases 2008
- Patent Cases 2009
- Patent Legislation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Q&A
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Pharma
- PHOSITA
- Post Grant Review
- Priority Rights
- Procedure
- Provisional Patent Application
- Public Use
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Revival
- Settlement
- Software
- State Immunity
- Statutory Construction
- Summary Judgment
- Supreme Court
- Takings
- Teaching Away
- TipCast
- Tools
- Trade Secret
- Transnational
- USPTO News
- Vitiation
Author
- Dennis Crouch,
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
School of LawOccasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics
- Short Articles:
- Preferred Blog Citation: Dennis Crouch, [Title of Post], Patently-O, [permalink URL] (Date).
Recent Comments
- step back on Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- step back on Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Just an ordinary inventor(TM) on Post EBay Injunctive Relief
- Just an ordinary inventor(TM) on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Just an ordinary inventor(TM) on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- Swarthy Fellow on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- ra on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- 6 pieds sous terre on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Malcolm Mooney on Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- John Nagle on Nil: The Value of Patents in a Major Crisis Such as an Influenza Pandemic
- Anony on Federal Circuit Affirms EDTex Ruling that Iovate's Muscle Building Patents are Invalid
- sucemabite on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- deathtobusinessmethods on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- 6 on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- Ned Heller on Patent on Tax Refund System Deemed Invalid under Section 101
- smashmouth football on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- smashmouth football on Vacatur: Judge Posner Agrees to Vacate Inequitable Conduct Holding Based on Settlement Agreement
- 6 on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- CAFCgroupie on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
- step back on Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel Announces that he is Leaving the Bench
Terms of Use & Disclaimer
- Terms of Use
- Patently-O on Facebook
Connect with Patently-O readers. -
-
I give up...
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Jul 03, 2009 at 01:44 PM
However, the image reminds me of the base of a remote control three and half foot blowup toy robot. When I had a patented product that competed with a Fortune 500 company’s product, I used the robot with my “sandwich” signs advertising my product and steered him in front of my competitor’s booth. The signs directed my competitor's customers to my booth so I could deliver my sales pitch. I also put up advertising signs of my product in the rest rooms. I try to leave no stones unturned to turn a profit.
Happy Fourth of July, and as faithful Patently-O readers may remember, it is also my anniversary -- my wife and I have been together since 1975. How she puts up with me God only knows. My wife is an angel -- oh Lord hear my prayer -- thank you, every day is an incomprehensible Blessing!
Happy happy holiday, and God bless everyone...
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Jul 03, 2009 at 01:57 PM
PS:
I forgot to mention that that the booths were at the annual industry trade show, but I'm guessing most readers would have figured that out.
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Jul 03, 2009 at 02:00 PM
Time to retell the story of Thomas Jefferson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence:
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/winter2000/jefferson.html
Posted by: step back | Jul 03, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Does anybody know what is depicted under the
“Happy Fourth-of-July” greeting ?
My curiosity is getting to me.
And I'm offering a reward.
In the meantime, I've been trying to invent
a way to search pictures or an illustration.
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Jul 04, 2009 at 10:26 AM
It looks like a design patent due to the lack of reference numerals. It also looks like a toy.
Try class D21 subclasses 533+ are toy vehicles.
Or since it is 4th of July perhaps it is a type of projector or sparkler holder. Class 42/54+ toy firearms or class 102 ordinance. Drop a firecracker in the top holes and shoot a ball out the front (provided it is not made of plastic of course)
Or those cylinders could just be for Lego type connectors...in that case class 273, amusement devices.
Good luck searching.
Dude
Posted by: dude | Jul 04, 2009 at 03:56 PM
oh yeah as far as your invention of an image search engine, check out www.tineye.com
could be a 102(b) on your invention
Dude
Posted by: dude | Jul 04, 2009 at 03:58 PM
Blogs are so interactive where we get lots of informative on any topics nice job keep it up !!
Posted by: Buy Dissertation Online | Jul 06, 2009 at 09:32 AM
graphics engine
Posted by: inviting body punches | Jul 06, 2009 at 10:15 AM
I've seen something like this. The nozzle on the end propels the toy like a rocket and the ones on top shoot out sparks like mini anti-aircraft fire. It's a working APC.
Posted by: an examiner | Jul 06, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Looks to me kind of like one of those water sprinklers that is shaped like a tractor and crawls up and down the water hose laid down across your yard while watering the grass. My neighbor has one of those.
Posted by: broje | Jul 06, 2009 at 11:37 AM
tractor sprinklers are in D23/215,222
Posted by: joe | Jul 06, 2009 at 12:08 PM
Dude and Broje: Off by a little bit. Check Class D22 not the toy art. An examiner gave a very examiner-like answer: "I've seen something like this."
Body punches = good answer!
PS. D400,634 to Byers.
Posted by: Public Searcher DIP | Jul 06, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Dear Public Searcher DIP,
Congratulations! I owe you a reward. What would you like?
Prof. Crouch was clever to post a Truck Configured Fireworks invention on the Fourth of July.
If you don't mind sharing, how did you identify the patent?
Posted by: Just an ordinary inventor(TM) | Jul 07, 2009 at 09:43 AM
Jaoi,
How am I supposed to support myself in a recesssion if I give away all my secrets?
Combine examiners fireworks suggestion from the 6th and the hatched drafting to be a design patent hint (and no ref #'s as dude pointed out) leads to this query (in EAST):
(firework or sparkler) and s.kd. = 24 hits
20th was the Byer reference.
Posted by: Public Finder DIP | Jul 07, 2009 at 01:05 PM