One month ago today a patent application filed by Apple Computer back on October 20, 2006, was published by the United States Patent Office.  The application titled Solar cells on portable devices could signal the entry into a new generation of mobile devices, more particularly the entry into the age of the solar iPod and iPhone.

Now, while this invention may be cool I also would like to point out that it appears that this application is very well written.  I am not going to comment on whether the invention is likely patentable because it is indeed new and not obvious because doing so would require a patent search and I am not using this patent as illustrative of something that should not be patented.  The invention looks useful and new, not to mention cool, so if a patent can be awarded it should.  Rather, the reason I am writing this is to talk about what I believe to be a good example of drafting.  From a drafting perspective what is done here in this application is quite good and worth reading by anyone who is trying to learn the art of drafting a patent application.  Notice in the Background how a story is being told about the industry and development of devices, which leads you to come to the conclusion that wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had a solor powered device.  Then in the Summary the application then says that what has been invented is exactly the need identified in the Background.  This is how it is done.  Only say enough about what is wrong or inferior with the prior art in the Background so that your invention solves all of the problems identified. 

Color-coded attachment comb key for hair clipper
US Patent No. 6,807,736
Issued October 26, 2004

I find myself almost completely overwhelmed by sadness. How is it possible that the patent system has fallen so far that patents on inventions like this one can be issued? In fact, patents such as this one are not only issued, they are issued every week! When teaching patent prosecution I always point out that sometimes the most simple inventions are the ones that present the biggest problems with respect to finding prior art. It seems that everyone wants to write about cutting edge stuff, so finding a reference in writing that talks about a swing moving side to side can be near impossible. That being said, how is it that anyone at the Patent Office could not find a reference that demonstrates that this “invention” is not patentable? This invention is only a color coded system!

Skin-irritating game machine [ PDF ]
US Patent No. 6,561,905
Issued May 13, 2003

This one is almost too good to be true! Bring on the electro-shock treatment. This patent covers the invention of a hand-held electronic game that outputs a voltage to irritate the skin of a player who loses. Can you imagine the lawsuits this would create if it were ever to be marketed? Even if the product is relatively safe there would certainly be product liability suits, and the children rights activists would have a field day against parents who would actually buy an electro-shock game boy. From a patent standpoint I wonder whether this should be patentable.  The subject matter seems fine, and utility is no problem, but while I cannot place the reference I am sure I have seen some B movies that have included devices similar to this one, and I would bet that some psychology students somewhere have tried this, or something similar, in a controlled environment.

Washington, D.C. – The Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host the 2008 Sally Ride Science TOYchallenge East Coast National Showcase at the USPTO campus on Saturday, May 17. The TOYchallenge is a national toy design competition for 5th – 8th graders designed to introduce girls and boys to engineering. It shows them that engineering is collaborative, creative and all around them.

The Wet nightclub, a popular Chicago bar, was ordered to pay over $500,000 in damages after people working undercover for Red Bull ordered drinks that mixed Red Bull with vodka but were served another energy drink.  The act of serving a less expensive energy drink and telling customers it was Red Bull undoubtedly caused damages to Red Bull.  Whenever any product is being passed off as another product there are liability concerns, but this is particularly true where the product that is being passed off is also an inferior product.  So not only is Red Bull’s name being used to make money for someone other than themselves, but because the resulting inferior drink is associated with the Red Bull name the brand suffers through no fault of their own.