The Heene family may have wanted to consult with Joseph Meadows of Los Angeles. His Patent No. 6,325,329 covers a helium balloon of sufficient volume and buoyancy to allow a human pilot to float above the ground and to glide over the ground.

« The Increasing Role of Published Applications in Patent Examination | Main | Bits and Bytes »
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics


So the only person yesterday with any sense, apparently, was the pilot of the Zepplin that flies out of Moffet Field near San Jose who noted that the balloon lacked sufficient volume to lift the weight of a child. But that doesn't make very compelling TV.
Posted by: Znutar | Oct 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM
My guess is that the little boy and his brothers were playing a trick. The little boy hides and his brothers say they saw him on the balloon.
Posted by: curious | Oct 16, 2009 at 01:25 PM
This is kind of a light weight patent, don't ya think?
Posted by: Ken Brooks | Oct 16, 2009 at 01:56 PM
yeah .. I mean theres no prior art here!!!
A-Team has an episode where two members of the team, fill garbage bags with helium and float out of prison on lawn chairs. what a ridiculous patent!!
Posted by: Richard Corsale | Oct 16, 2009 at 03:50 PM
A novel by Martin Caidin, 'Almost Midnight' published in 1971. A Large balloon placed inside the shroud lines of parachutes for exfiltration. Mind you the idea was missing the necessary elements of Claims 1 and 7 (the tether lines - "Thus, this invention permits safe recreational use of a helium balloon without the need for a pilot certificate or other permit.").
Are we sure the need for tethers isn't obvious?
Posted by: Dio Gratia | Oct 16, 2009 at 04:23 PM
Nice one Ken. :)
Posted by: Joe Maxey | Oct 16, 2009 at 04:56 PM
On his interview with the Today show, the father explicitly says that the balloon was "not marketable, not even patentable." lol
Posted by: Jules | Oct 16, 2009 at 05:55 PM
My hat is off to Hunton & Williams for getting this case allowed...
Posted by: Ad Absurdum | Oct 16, 2009 at 06:50 PM
> My hat is off to Hunton & Williams for getting this case allowed...
I really hope that comment was tongue-in-cheek.
There's simply no way that this patent advances the useful arts.
Posted by: Bob J | Oct 17, 2009 at 02:55 AM
Did you read the patent Bob J?
Posted by: hindsight from the future | Oct 17, 2009 at 10:45 AM
This patent is referenced at www.parabounce.com. It seems clear enough from the website that the owners of this patent are in the business of using helium balloons to suspend people above the ground. See also www.youtube.com/user/parabounce
As to the practical aspects of the Heene stunt, see http://www.clusterballoon.org/learning/learning.htm. John Ninomiya, an adult who appears to weigh 150-170 lbs., shows himself suspended beneath seven Mylar balloons. Elsewhere he states that the balloons totaled about 7,000 cubic feet.
How much does this kid weigh? BTW, keep in mind the cube-square law. A 600 cubic foot balloon will have a lot more dead weight (relative to the lift provided by its volume) than a 6000 cubic foot balloon.
Posted by: tom | Oct 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM
"It seems clear enough from the website that the owners of this patent are in the business of using helium balloons to suspend people above the ground"
As we know, that is one of the most highly competitive businesses in America. Without a patent, there is no way such a business could ever ... get off the ground?
Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Oct 17, 2009 at 01:44 PM
...get off the ground - that was actually funny Malcolm. Kudo's to humor.
However, your "without a patent premise" is bankrupt. Patents are to promote - nowhere in the law is it that such promotion must be the ONLY force, or that without patents, the venture would not be undertaken. I am willing to any legal evidence you have to the contrary.
Posted by: Noise above Law | Oct 17, 2009 at 02:44 PM
NAL,
I imagine Malcolm is referring to previous discussions where he/she took issue with others' statement that patents are necessary for encouraging innovation.
I don't know how it applies to Parabounce, but in some fields one needs IP protection to attract investors/entrepreneurs, to work with subcontractors and to negotiate with large corporations.
Posted by: Erez Gur | Oct 18, 2009 at 09:26 AM
Erez,
Thanks, I am aware of where else Malcolm uses the bankrupt argument and I agree with you concering protecting a client's rights when working with subs and large corps.
Malcolm uses the argument in the situation you point out and in other situations where he would have it that patents should be only granted where they are absoultely necessary for the advancement of the arts. He misapplies the logic of the legal mandate (centered around the notion of promote).
Posted by: Noise above Law | Oct 18, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Richard Corsale is WRONG!!!
The A-Team in question "Pros and Cons" involved lawnchairs attached to trashbags filled with HOT AIR generated by hair dryers. This classic stared BOTH Red West (Pappy Boyington Black Sheep - mechanic) AND Clifton James (James Bond - redneck sheriff). Get your facts straight before filing a patent, before going to court, and before discussing something a sacred as the A-Team. Richard Corsale is full of hot air.
Posted by: Eric Shaffer | Nov 08, 2009 at 01:16 PM