Stupid Patent Of The Month: Carrying Trays On A Cart

from the happy-(patented)-travels dept

Fri, Dec 23rd 2016 7:39pm — Daniel Nazer, EFF

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

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Dec 2016 @ 9:00pm

Abolish Patents
...along with copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 23 Dec 2016 @ 9:52pm

SecurityPoint Holdings ? Seriously?

Seriously?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wyrm (profile), 23 Dec 2016 @ 11:58pm

Let's sum it up: it's obvious, overbroad and has lots of prior art, both in this exact context and others.
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 thread ]
Seegras (profile), 24 Dec 2016 @ 3:38am

Since the patent offices can't be bothered to research prior art somewhere other than in patents themselves, ridicule ensues.

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 thread ]
hij (profile), 24 Dec 2016 @ 3:46am

Re: patenting algorithms
Not only that but it is an algorithm. It is basically a set of line by line actions to take to obtain a desired result. This is no different than patenting a set of pseudo-code.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2016 @ 3:51am

Investigate the guy who allowed the patent to go through.

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 thread ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 24 Dec 2016 @ 4:31am

how much patent reform
could be acheived by giving words their real meaning? Methods aren't inventions. Obvious means not requiring much insight or inspiration. Independent invention should be evidence of obviousness. Making a tweak to an existing thing, even if useful, is not an invention. If it is useful, it will be adopted even without patent protection.

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 thread ]
David, 24 Dec 2016 @ 5:35am

If only this were about
carrying Crays on a tart.

That would be interesting.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tom (profile), 24 Dec 2016 @ 8:35am

The trays have rounded corners. Maybe Apple should sue for violating their design patent on rounded corners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2016 @ 10:15am

Re: Abolish Patents
I have a copyright on abolishing patents. See you in court.
And before you try, I also have the trademark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Dec 2016 @ 11:44am

Henry Ford has risen from his grave
This patent, broadly interpreted, only covers about 98% of all production lines since the Model T.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That One Guy (profile), 24 Dec 2016 @ 12:01pm

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 thread ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 24 Dec 2016 @ 1:16pm

Re: Henry Ford has risen from his grave
Yeah it's just so ISO 900x-something (an equally if not more hilarious thing than patents, but i digress) that i honestly fail to see anything patentable. Blah blah, on a computer. Blah blah, at a security checkpoint. Blah blah, moving trays, but at your Mom's.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 24 Dec 2016 @ 2:52pm

Re: I have a copyright on abolishing patents. See you in court.
Well, I have a trademark on “see you in court”. And also a trade secret on whatever your next move is, so I’ll get you if you do it without an NDA. Whatever it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2016 @ 7:12am

Re: how much patent reform
IP is not a bad thing conceptually. At least in terms of patents. There should be some reward for developing inventions to prevent them from immediately being stolen. Especially when the development costs are high but the reproduction costs are low.

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 thread ]
Châu, 25 Dec 2016 @ 6:17pm

National Security Exception
I think US government can use its creativity and use find a National Security Interests reason for revoke patent or not need pay money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2016 @ 6:41pm

Re: Re: how much patent reform

There should be some reward for developing inventions to prevent them from immediately being stolen.

Umm, theft is already illegal without patents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Dec 2016 @ 9:09pm

This is the innovation that patents drive and that Ronald J. Riley insists we have to protect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Groaker (profile), 26 Dec 2016 @ 3:26am

I have a patent on the use of the mouth for, but not limited to,speaking, spitting, eating, sucking on a straw, chewing, osculating, cunnilingus, fellatio and all other discovered and undiscovered. I also have a patent on the use of hands, fingers, and toes for any and all types of communication including keyboarding.

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 thread ]
kenichi tanaka (profile), 26 Dec 2016 @ 8:30am

How the hell did this patent ever get approved in the first place? This opens up every restaurant in the world to getting sued for transporting food trays on a cart. This patent needs to be revoked.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Dec 2016 @ 9:11am

Re: Re: how much patent reform
If the average person "skilled in the art" can't read a patent and produce the described "invention" from the description, then the patent itself is null and void.
[ link to this | view in thread ]