I will be discussing the various patents for insulating beverages again, only this time I will be focusing more on the anticipation and obviousness of these patents specifically on the issues related to invalidity, priority date and prior art.
The patents that were examined (and the prior arts they cited) were:
- Thermal Coffee Cup
- Sleeve Construction For Improved Paperboard Cup Insulation (with dots)
- which cites the thermal coffee cup
- Insulating Sleeve (with hooks and flat aigret)
- Beverage Cup Sleeving System and Method (accessories, pocket, keychain, microwave, corrugated etc.)
- claims priority over Provisional Application No, 60/839,259 as it is entirely contained within this patent
- Protective Sleeve (flat storage, material and easier less wasteful manufacturing)
- Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container (reusable)
- citing Sleeve Construction For Improved Paperboard Cup Insulation
- as it is designed for repeated use, it makes all the prior art disposable sleeves unnecessary
- Temperature-Indicating Sleeve and Related Container
- Thermal Sleeve, Method For Manufacturing a Thermal Sleeve, And Combination Cup and Thermal Sleeve (creped paper sleeve and cup made of many different materials)
- citing Sleeve Construction For Improved Paperboard Cup Insulation and the Insulating Sleeve patents
- Hot and Cold Cup Sleeve (multi layers)
From an anticipation standpoint, we can see how the Beverage Cup Sleeving System and Method claims priority over a Provisional Application filed in August of 2007 as this provisional application now lacks novelty.
As for anticipation we need a single prior art piece to have "all of the elements" of a single claim, it is hard to pinpoint if there is anticipation as there are so many combinations of materials and features in all of these claims that they aren't exactly the same.
Regarding obviousness, one may believe that many of the above inventions barely scrape by
without being regarded as obvious. However, each of these patents add a new spin or "non-obvious" idea making the invention novel. Even the Protective Sleeve patent which may seem as the dullest invention that doesn't add anything new to the field has significant importance. The shape that is presented allows for much better spacing organization making the manufacturing of these sleeve less wasteful to the environment and also cheaper. Even if simple, this innovation wasn't obvious.
You can see in the prior blog post how many of the patent granting and application dates cross-over with each other so naturally there are issues with prior arts as many of the patents cite each other.
For example: we can see how the Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container builds off of the air-gap method first reported in the Improved Paperboard Cup Insulation patent, however via making the whole sleeve reusable, the invention changes and thus anticipation is not applicable. However, when we think about the obviousness of this same invention, to me it seems to lack a bit of non-obviousness. It takes almost all of its features from prior arts, except for the fact that it isn't disposable. As many objects have been made to replace disposable objects, I think it might be able to be argued that this invention is a bit obvious. The lawyer must have been good!
Please view my Youtube video below for a conversation on the above topics!
Hey,
ReplyDeleteI really like how you broke up your anticipation and obviousness viewpoints making it easier for the reader to understand. I enjoyed the comment about having a good lawyer. Nice analysis!
Oliviero, this blog post is excellent, bravo! Very good observation regarding piror arts e.g. the insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container takes almost all of its features from prior arts, except for the fact that it isn't disposable. For future reference, I know its hard, but try keep your YouTube videos under 3 mins!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post Oliviero.
ReplyDeleteI think it's nice that you laid out all the patents before applying them to the terms obviousness and anticipation. Good job
Thanks for you analysis Oliviero!
ReplyDelete"From an anticipation standpoint, we can see how the Beverage Cup Sleeving System and Method claims priority over a Provisional Application filed in August of 2007 as this provisional application now lacks novelty.
"
I am glad that you bring up the fact that it used to be novel, but now isn't novel. Many people wrote about how it is just straight up isn't novel, but the fact is, it used to be novel, but NOW isn't.
Oliviero,
ReplyDeleteGreat blog post especially how you argued that Insulator Sleeve for a Beverage Container was not so obvious. Many people argue that such an invention was quite novel simply because the sleeve was now reusable, but they tend to not look more in depth and observe that it takes almost all of its features from prior art. I think thats an excellent point most observers missed out on.
I liked that you commended his great work but still added constructive criticism. Great job!
DeleteI liked that you commended his great work but still added constructive criticism. Great job!
DeleteThanks for the great discussion on the obviousness and anticipation. I think it’s very helpful to list out all patents upfront so that I can keep referring back later on. I also like the discussion on Insulator Sleeve. The bolded sentence emphasized an important factor for determining obviousness.
ReplyDeleteI like how you picked out a specific part of his post that stood out to you. Great comment
DeleteHi Oliviero,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your analysis on obviousness and anticipation, with the involvement of multiple patents to provide examples of your conclusions. Adding to what Yi said, I really liked your use of bold statements as my eyes focused on your statements around the bolding and I could easily understand what you were trying to say.
Hi Aradhana,
DeleteI really like how you laid out the positive work he's included. I would suggest adding some constructive feedback so he knows what to improve on next time. Great job!
Heyy! Great Blog Post! It was really easy to understand and well written. I like how you clearly explained the anticipation and obviousness for each patent. I also like how you gave examples to prove your points. Well done :)
ReplyDeleteGreat demonstration of obviousness and anticipation for the patents. It would have been helpful to see you take or definition of the two terms as well.
ReplyDeleteI like how you used constructive criticism as opposed to only positive feedback.
DeleteOliviero,
ReplyDeleteGreat post. You claimed that not many of the patents actually showed true non-obviousness in regards to not actually being completely different from the prior art. I could not agree with you more. The coffee sleeve serves a very simple function and for it to be blown out of proportion by all of these different functions seems quite obtuse.
Cheers
Great post Oliviero! Really broad and covered a lot of inventions. I liked your different approach to this one where you evaluated all the patents together, instead of selecting a few to focus your attention on. Great job pointing out how some patents cite each other.
ReplyDelete