Stupid Patent Of The Month: Carrying Trays On A Cart
from the happy-(patented)-travels dept
As you head home for the holidays, perhaps passing through a checkpoint or two, take some time to think about U.S. Patent No. 6,888,460, "Advertising trays for security screening." The owner of this patent, SecurityPoint Holdings, Inc., has sued the United States government for infringement. SecurityPoint recently won a trial on validity [PDF] and the case will now proceed to a damages phase. So, unless the validity decision gets overturned on appeal, we'll soon be paying tax dollars for the idea of moving trays on carts.
Although the title of the patent mentions advertising, some of its claims do not require any ads at all. In fact, the patent is so broad it reads on almost any system of using trays and carts at a checkpoint. The first claim of the patent (with limitations labeled), reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
[a] positioning a first tray cart containing trays at the proximate end of a scanning device through which objects may be passed, wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end,
[b] removing a tray from said first tray cart,
[c] passing said tray through said scanning device from said proximate end through to said distal end,
[d] providing a second tray cart at said distal end of said scanning device,
[e] receiving said tray passed through said scanning device in said second tray cart, and
[f] moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end.
In plain English, this claim means: send trays through a checkpoint and use two carts to move the trays back and forth. As is common with patents, the claim uses obtuse language for ordinary things. For example, the word-salad at limitation [f] pretty much just says: "use a cart to move trays from the end of the checkpoint back to the start."
In a trial before the Court of Federal Claims, the government argued that this claim was obvious because moving trays using carts was well-known in many contexts. The court disagreed. The court suggested that even if using carts to move trays was well-known, the government needed prior art specifically for security checkpoints (arguably the government had such evidence, but the court disagreed on that point too).
In fairness to SecurityPoint, evidence at trial suggested that it had developed a good system for managing trays and carts within the confined space of an airport security checkpoint. But the patent's claims are far broader than any specific solution. This is something we often see in patent law: someone develops a (fairly narrow) innovation, but then broadly claims it, capturing things that are well-known or banal. This sort of claiming hurts follow-on inventors who develop their own ideas that wouldn't infringe any narrower claim, and weren't invented by the patent holder. But because the broader claim is allowed, their own inventions become infringing. Here, claim 1 is not limited to any particular kind of cart, tray, or scanner. The claim really reads on using a couple of carts to move trays and, in our view, should have been found obvious.
Together with Public Knowledge, we recently filed an amicus brief [PDF] asking the Supreme Court to consider the obviousness standard in patent law. We argue that, as applied by the Federal Circuit, obviousness law has abandoned common sense. Specifically, we argue that the Federal Circuit has failed to apply a Supreme Court case called KSR v. Teleflex that calls for a flexible, common sense approach. We hope the Supreme Court takes that case. If it does, it might help us save some tax dollars that would otherwise have gone to SecurityPoint. Unfortunately, whatever happens, we'll likely still be stuck waiting at airport checkpoints.
Reposted from EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month series.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cart, patents, security, stupid patent of the month, trays
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Abolish Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Abolish Patents
And before you try, I also have the trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have a copyright on abolishing patents. See you in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SecurityPoint Holdings ? Seriously?
Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But it's a valid patent, which means it encourages innovation. By preventing both actual innovation and an obvious use of an old technology (the cart) without any new technology. Which means the only thing actually patented there is a process. An idea.
This is literally "use non patented object in a specific way" (not even an innovative one at that).
How did that meet any standard of patentability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: patenting algorithms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like this one here, where Apple managed to get a patent on (at least) 4000 year old technology.
https://seegras.discordia.ch/Blog/patents-on-bronze-age-technology/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But, on a computer! Everything is new once you add on a computer to it, as it takes a genius level mind to take an idea that's been around (at times literally) decades, centuries, or even eons and apply it to software, so of course it makes sense to reward that flash of brilliance!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy because he's retarded enough NOT to cover up the $30 thousand dollars he was paid to just rubberstamp this crap.
Idiotically putting the cash directly into your main bank account....typical government scum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how much patent reform
IP is not a positive good to be spread far and wide, it is a necessary evil to be applied where and when necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how much patent reform
The issues we have are patents are generally written to be super broad and obtuse. They use non-standard language to prevent others from finding them and claim all sorts of obvious crap. The claims need to be specific and definitive. I think figures and images should be part of the claims to improve that definitiveness. The goal of patents was originally to teach and inform others of your invention to expand the general knowledge. You can't learn a damn thing from reading a modern patent.
Code and business processes should not generally be patentable (maybe the coding language itself? Probably not even then)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how much patent reform
Umm, theft is already illegal without patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: how much patent reform
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If only this were about
That would be interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Henry Ford has risen from his grave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Henry Ford has risen from his grave
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
National Security Exception
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is therefor illegal for any person to have communicated the putative cart paten cart patent into law, or for any other purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]