Call Tucker Law Today! Toll Free 1-800-TUCKERWINS
FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube

What’s Patenting

Patent for an Office Chair

U.S. Patent 9,913,539 Yesterday we looked at a Buzz Lightyear straw patent that had an immediate cool factor.  Today, we look at an office chair that has none of the same.  While this office chair certainly doesn’t excite like a Buzz Lightyear straw, it definitely appears to provide some great ergonomic support for the person sitting in the chair.  It visually looks as though the main cruz of the patent is related to a slidable member that run vertical along the chair back.  Commonly when we discuss patents with new clients, a chair is the common patent example to explain patents in a simple manner.  I doubt this would make it into our new patent client discussion, but we wouldn’t hesitate to try this chair out in our office. On March 13, 2018, Week 11, Number 1448-2, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published issued U.S. Patent Number 9,913,539.  The patent describes an office chair with what appears to this patent attorney to be some type of moveable back support.  Reviewing the other figures, it appears that the inventor has attempted to cove a number of different chair shapes without the movable central back support member. FIGS. 1-27 are directed to: an aspect of the office chair 10 including a back support structure 12 including a pair of generally vertical support posts 18, and a plurality of support arms 21 extending outwardly from the support posts 18. FIGS. 1 and 1A show views of a completed version of the chair 10. The chair generally includes a chair frame 20, a back support structure 12, a seat support 15, and an armrest assembly 22 extending from the chair frame 20. The chair frame 20 may [...]

By |2023-01-09T04:54:46-05:00April 11th, 2018|Patents, What's Patenting|Comments Off on Patent for an Office Chair
Read More

Buzz Lighter Year Straw Patent

U.S. Patent 9,913,554 Some patents just need pictures to appreciate the cool factor.  This patent is one of them.  The patent claims a novelty straw.  However, the straw appears to be a buzz lightyear star with expandable wings connected to the straw.  The patent attorney that drafted the patent had fun with this one.  Judging by the figure—before even reading the patent—it is obvious that when the child sucks through the straw, the Buzz Lightyear wings go up and when the child stops drinking, the wings go back down.  It is obvious based on the arrows in FIG. 1 in conjunction with the position of the wings in the figure.  This invention could clearly be extended "up up and beyond" Buzz Lightyear as it is not clear if the inventor has a license to use the trademark/copyright of Buzz Lightyear. On March 13, 2018, Week 11, Number 1448-2, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published issued U.S. Patent Number 9,913,554. In the background section, the patent attorney describes how drinking stars also exist that move novelty items that are external to the straw.  The patent attorney provides examples of such prior art such prior art straws are exemplified by U.S. Pat. No. 3,332,622 to Lombard, entitled Drinking Straw, U.S. Pat. No. 2,811,808 to Briese, entitled Drinking Tube, and U.S. Pat. No. 6,129,292 to Leung, entitled Novelty Drinking Straw. With such prior art, the liquid passing through the straw is used directly to create the mechanical motion. As such, the mechanisms within the straws are hydraulic in nature. The patent attorney identified a problem shared by all such prior art straws is that since the mechanisms are hydraulic, the mechanisms become contaminated by the flowing [...]

By |2023-01-09T04:54:47-05:00April 10th, 2018|Patents, What's Patenting|Comments Off on Buzz Lighter Year Straw Patent
Read More

Foot Balancing Device

U.S. Patent 9,913,508 On March 13, 2018, Week 11, Number 1448-2, the United States Patent and Trademark Office published issued U.S. Patent Number 9,913,508. The invention appears to be related to a way to increase balance while walking.  It is believed this invention was directed by the patent attorney to be used while walking with shoes as a show insert.  The invention further appears to be owned by an orthotics company out of Taipei. The patent claims, inter alia: A foot balancing device, consisting of: a shoe insert having a foot contact surface and a bottom surface, the shoe insert defining a front-of-sole region, an arch region, and a heel region sequentially arranged in a longitudinal direction of the shoe insert, the foot contact surface and the bottom surface each being a flat surface; a main balancing element formed as a protuberance in the arch region and located on the shoe insert at a position corresponding to a fulcrum for a front part of a sole of a user's foot and a heel of the foot; wherein the main balancing element is located in the arch region of the shoe insert corresponding to a geometric center between a first metatarsal bone point, a fifth metatarsal bone point, and a heel point of the shoe insert, wherein the main balancing element protrudes above the flat surface of the foot contact surface or protrudes below the flat surface of the bottom surface, and wherein the first metatarsal bone point corresponds in position to a first metatarsal bone of the foot, the fifth metatarsal bone point corresponds in position to a fifth metatarsal bone of the foot, and the heel point corresponds in position to the heel of [...]

By |2018-04-09T16:48:54-04:00April 9th, 2018|Patents, What's Patenting, What's Patenting|Comments Off on Foot Balancing Device
Read More

Patent Attorneys Argued Appeal In IPR2016-00112

Patent Attorneys Argue Appeal In IPR2016-00112 On Federal Court Appeal, No. 2017-1889, relating to an Inter Partes Review, IPR2016-00112 of a patent dispute.  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board determined that the petitioner had failed to meet the legal standard to show that the claims of the patent, U.S. Patent 8,104,151 (hereafter “‘151 patent”) were unpatentable.  The patent attorney for each side presented their arguments to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  The standard requires a high standard of the preponderance of the evidence.  The ‘151 patent was directed towards a casket arrangement make of pliable materials.  Pliable materials can include cardboard among other materials. Matthews argued that the “casket body” is purely language of intended use.  If the term “casket body” is only intended use, then the term should be afforded no patentable weight.  As a patent attorney, I agree with the Court that disagreed.  The term casket body is clearly a structural term.  The dictionary definition of “body” is a physical structure of a person or an animal.  However, in the intellectual property word, body extents to any physical structure. The ‘151 Patent Claims provide, inter alia: A casket arrangement having a first configuration and a second configuration, comprising: a bottom panel formed of a pliable material; side panels formed intrinsically with the bottom panel of the pliable material, each side panel including a lower section and an upper section foldably attached thereto, the lower section extending vertically upward from the bottom panel, the upper section in the first configuration extending upward from the lower section and in the second configuration extending in a direction other than vertically upward from the lower section; end panels formed intrinsically with the [...]

By |2023-01-09T04:54:48-05:00April 7th, 2018|Patents, What's Patenting|Comments Off on Patent Attorneys Argued Appeal In IPR2016-00112
Read More
Go to Top