Comments on: New and interesting Patent Stats comparing USPTO, JPO, EPO and Australian Patent Office http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/29/new-and-interesting-patent-stats-comparing-uspto-jpo-epo-and-australian-patent-office/ an analysis of law, technology, economics, and policy Thu, 29 Dec 2011 19:59:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: kim http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/29/new-and-interesting-patent-stats-comparing-uspto-jpo-epo-and-australian-patent-office/comment-page-1/#comment-55777 kim Fri, 29 Feb 2008 06:15:30 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/29/new-and-interesting-patent-stats-comparing-uspto-jpo-epo-and-australian-patent-office/#comment-55777 Oh now be fair Dave. The patent for the 'circular transportation facilitation device' was an <em>innovation</em> patent. That means it was not examined at the time the patent was applied for. Innovation patents are only examined if you want to enforce them - and you can't enforce them unless you have them examined. So the 'wheel patent' was <em>never</em> enforceable. It was a joke! Oh now be fair Dave. The patent for the ‘circular transportation facilitation device’ was an innovation patent. That means it was not examined at the time the patent was applied for. Innovation patents are only examined if you want to enforce them – and you can’t enforce them unless you have them examined. So the ‘wheel patent’ was never enforceable. It was a joke!

]]> By: Dave Bath http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/29/new-and-interesting-patent-stats-comparing-uspto-jpo-epo-and-australian-patent-office/comment-page-1/#comment-55776 Dave Bath Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:21:39 +0000 http://www.lawfont.com/2008/02/29/new-and-interesting-patent-stats-comparing-uspto-jpo-epo-and-australian-patent-office/#comment-55776 It's the quality of the review (by patent clerks who can figure out prior art) that is important, and fee-payers might not want prior art discovered. It doesn't surprise me that US and Oz patents offices grant more applications than others. Remember Australian Innovation Patent (Application 2001100012 24-May-2001, granted Aug 2001 to JM Keogh of Melbourne) that was for a "Circular Transportation Facilitation Device". <a href="http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/searching/patsearch/search_section.jsp?sectionCode=DTL&keyNo=2001100012&type=I" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is the record, and <a href="http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~gfx/Courses/2002/BigData/papers/Misc/Wheel Patent.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> is the application, complete with pictures. Yep, our glorious patents investigations couldn't recognize the wheel as prior art, only millenia out-of-date! It’s the quality of the review (by patent clerks who can figure out prior art) that is important, and fee-payers might not want prior art discovered.

It doesn’t surprise me that US and Oz patents offices grant more applications than others.

Remember Australian Innovation Patent (Application 2001100012 24-May-2001, granted Aug 2001 to JM Keogh of Melbourne) that was for a “Circular Transportation Facilitation Device”.
Here is the record, and here is the application, complete with pictures.

Yep, our glorious patents investigations couldn’t recognize the wheel as prior art, only millenia out-of-date!

]]>