User:Dsakamot

My Patent

Patent 4764692: Stereo speaker system for walkman-type radio and/or cassette player

Date issued: Aug. 16, 1988

The idea behind this invention was to create a way to carry stereo speakers in a portable and discrete manner. The invention uses a pair of suspenders which contain a pouch for a Walkman-type radio with speakers positioned over the shoulder straps. I found this patent interesting because I found the design of this invention both intriguing and ingenious. I also think it will be interesting to think up ways in which to improve this product. I found this patent while searching on Google Patents which can be found here :[1]

Patent References

This patent was based on three main patents. The first patent that is referenced is Patent no. 1335927 [2]: TROITSEBS-SUPPORT issued in Apr. 1920. The second patent that is referenced is Patent no. 4322585 [3]: Personal electronic listening system with an air and bone transducer mounted on the clothing collar that was issued on Mar. 30, 1982. The last main patent that is referenced is Patent no. 4589134 [4]: Personal sound system issued on May 13, 1986.

Patent 1335927 is a clothing article that improves the support of trousers by combining elements of both suspenders and a belt. In this invention, suspender straps over the shoulders are supported by a belt fastener. This would have a substantial improvement in holding up trousers over a belt or trousers and improve the appearance and comfort of whoever was wearing this invention.

Patent 4322585 is an electronic listening system that uses speakers connected to a portable audio device. In this invention, these speakers have pins that allow them to mount them in a position that is in close range to a person’s ears by attaching itself on the article of clothing the listener will wear. Furthermore, the pins seek to not only allow for mounting but to also provide electrical connection to the device.

Patent 4589314 is a wearable personal sound system. It involves a garment that contains pockets for both the speakers and the portable audio device in another pocket. Wires that are connected to the speakers and device are also relatively easy to attach and detach.

It is these three patents used in combination that served as the basis for the patent that I’ve selected.

Patent Evaluation Under Hotchkiss and A.&P.

If my patent were subjected to the analysis used in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood (1850) and A.&P .Tea Co. v. Supermarket Corp. (1950), it would’ve been rejected on the following reasons.

Reason 1: The invention would not have been considered novel

In Hotchkiss, another one of the claims of why the patent was invalid was because the plaintiffs couldn’t show the originality of their clay doorknob. This is very similar to the progression of my patent. Referencing the last two patents, the purpose of having a portable sound system with wearable speakers has the same intent of Patent 4764962. Because the later patent is claiming the same thing as the earlier patent, this would be unoriginal and unpatentable.

Reason 2: Ingenuity and skills of an ordinary mechanic

The key ruling that came from Hotchkiss was that the invention wasn’t patentable because “there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of the skillful mechanic, not that of the inventor.” The Supreme Court ruled that simply using clay for the material in a shape designed for a metal knob didn’t constitute patent protection because a mechanic of the field would’ve been able to do the same thing. This holds true for my patent. Using the components of all three patent references, it would be fairly simple of a person with ordinary skill in the field to make that invention thus making it invalid.

Reason 3: The whole must be greater than the sum of its parts

In A.&P., the Supreme Court ruled that “The conjunction or concert of known elements must contribute something: only when the whole in some way exceeds the sum of its parts is the accumulation of old devices patentable.” When looking at my patent, it appears that it doesn’t fit these criteria. When looking at those patents individually, suspenders, clips, and pockets for a portable audio device are found. Even after combining the three, it’s apparent that this combination hasn’t made a drastic improvement in the end product; it’s turns out just as expected.

Reason 4: It didn’t promote the “Progress of Science and useful Arts

In A.&.P., the concurring opinion in the Supreme Court stressed the need for an invention that would fulfill these goals. Some of these quotes include “Patents serve a higher end- the advancement of science.” Also, “It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures.” In other words, the invention needed to have an important purpose in order for it to be granted protection. Based on this definition, it is clear that my patent doesn’t make a distinctive contribution to the knowledge of science and other related fields and wouldn’t be granted patent protection.