Anticipation and Obviousness of Patent: Beverage cup sleeving system and method
(US 20080078824 A1) and Thermal coffee cup (US 2661889 A)
Anticipation: Beverage cup sleeving system
According to the Legal Information Institute "In patent law, anticipation refers to the prior invention or disclosure of the claimed invention by another, or the inventor's own disclosure of the claimed invention by publication, sale, or offer to sell prior to the inventor's application for a patent. [Essentially], if someone else has known about or used the invention before the patent applicant applies for a patent, that patent applicant will not be entitled to a patent." From my personal perspective, I believe the beverage club sleeving system lacks anticipation and should therefore be invalidated as a patent.
From what we have observed with the numerous patents we evaluated, we can see this particular patent includes many of the same claims as its predecessors: a conical layer of insulation, open top and bottom, exterior and interior surface etc. However none of these claims vary in any meaningful way from the patents before it. In anticipation sense, a variant of this patent has already been known and used by consumers. Therefore it is my opinion this invention should not qualify as its own unique patent.
Obviousness: Thermal coffee cup
"A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained... if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." In layman terms, a patent can not be an advancement so minimal that a reasonable person could have created it. This criteria has been utilized many times in the past for numerous petty patent applications, such as the New York man who attempted to patent the stick.
In terms of the patent regarding the thermal coffee cup (filed in 1948) I believed this application does fulfill the criteria of obviousness. One obvious sign of this is the fact the patent application only includes one paragraph of claim, displaying a lack of necessity to specify numerous details to separate itself from earlier inventions. The claim itself is rather broad, specifying the container properties, shape, and texture nuances. Based on the broadness of the claim and lack of similar products in the market at the time, I would quality this patent as being non-obvious.
Hi Christopher, I really like the analysis you did on the two different patents. You point out the reason why these patents should be invalid. However, one thing I would point out is that the priority dates for both are different, so would that make a difference in whether we should invalidate both of them.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment. I like the positive feedback and the suggestion. Good job.
DeleteGreat job on noticing the details. I like the positive feedback and the question that suggests more validations might be necessary.
DeleteHey Christopher,
ReplyDeleteGreat job on this job post. I like how you defined the terms beforehand and enjoyed the comparison. Good job keeping the post short and succinct.
I'm sure you would agree with me when I say how interesting it is that patents apply to everything: from simple technologies all the way to the most complex components in electronics. Next time, it would be helpful if you would define obviousness and anticipation to start your blog post. However, great job overall.
ReplyDeleteI like how this comment contains both a complement and a constructive suggestion. Really a quality comment and I agree with its points.
DeleteGreat job explaining each term and comparing them as well. Good structure as well.
ReplyDeleteHi Chris,
ReplyDeleteThanks again for defining the two terms, as that gave a really good preface to the analysis you presented in your blog post.