This week, we saw some examples of absurd patents in class. After doing a search online, I chanced upon even more silly patents. Since I enjoy food, I decided to blog about some patents related to eating.
First off is US Patent #6,872,119 - "Garments having Edible Components and Methods for Making Same". The invention claims candies with a hole in the center which can be strung by portions of the clothes, such as by the laces of a bikini or hoodie, bag strap, and even the ankle strap of a stiletto! Although I have seen things like chocolate clothes on the runway and even Lady Gaga's meat dress, I would have thought of these being limited to artistic pleasure instead of being patented. It is highly unlikely anyone would infringe on the patent.
First off is US Patent #6,872,119 - "Garments having Edible Components and Methods for Making Same". The invention claims candies with a hole in the center which can be strung by portions of the clothes, such as by the laces of a bikini or hoodie, bag strap, and even the ankle strap of a stiletto! Although I have seen things like chocolate clothes on the runway and even Lady Gaga's meat dress, I would have thought of these being limited to artistic pleasure instead of being patented. It is highly unlikely anyone would infringe on the patent.
In addition, the candy would become sticky when exposed to moisture, and be pretty gross to even consider eating. What's worse are those that have direct contact with the skin, such as the bikini and shoes!
It is also interesting that there are many prior art cited and after doing a quick search, I found that most are largely unrelated to the invention. Some of them are even cited by the examiner himself. It is likely they were mentioned to supposedly add more "credibility" to the invention and justify its approval.
Sources:
I've seen candy items such as these in gift stores such as Spencer's, but I had thought that they were made by multiple companies! If it is true that one company holds the patent for this invention, then I would assume that these other companies are either paying that company a licensing fee or are involved in litigation, in which case I think it would prove to be very easy to show that the claims read on to their products as the claims seem to be very simple to me.
ReplyDelete