In this blog post, I'll be discussing an interesting patent that I discovered on the blog site Patently Silly, which contains a database of "silly" patents. The patent covers a walking cane that has three flasks built into it. I have included a picture of it below.
The patent has a total of 12 claims, overall discussing the structure, materials, and shape configuration of the cane. In addition to being a "silly" invention, I found that the patent was not well written because of this reason. The claims covered within the patent are too specific, covering the specific configuration that the pictured cane's flasks are in. As a result, if, for example, I invented a cane that has four flasks contained within it, I would not be infringing on this patent. The specificity of this patent therefore prohibits it from having any real value as a revenue generating patent with which the owner could sue infringing parties, as the likelihood of a flask cane manufacturer adopting the specific configuration that is discussed in the patent is minimal.
Another point of interest that I found regarding this patent was the wide variety of prior art sources that it listed. On first thought, I would have assumed that such a patent would have minimal prior art references, due to the absurdity and novelty of the idea. However, this patent cited 15 previous domestic patent documents as prior art, in addition to 6 foreign patent documents. Furthermore, many of these prior art sources were extremely old, including patent number 26,721, which was filed in January of 1860.
Overall, this three-flask cane was an interesting case study in the importance of keeping claims broad enough to be meaningful, as well as demonstrating the amount of thought that must be put into trivial device patents.
I further discuss my thoughts on this topic at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pwB-JAorbg
I was also surprised to see how many prior arts actually go into some of these seemingly absurd and useless patents, as well as how much effort and thought are actually pun into designing such "silly patents". And there are thousands of these patents out there, which brings me to my next questions, why do inventors feel the need to create and patent such inventions? Is this just a hobby of theirs or are there more serious underlying implications?
ReplyDeleteI agree that this product falls directly under the category of "silly". It is a definitely something that works but it doesn't seem practical. The purpose of a flask is to easily hide something that contains liquids. This cane is the exact opposite of something that is subtle. Yet, I can see this being a huge hit for things like a costume party or a parade.
ReplyDelete