If the examiner agrees this time, we pass Go, collect $200 and get our Notice of Allowance. Or we could amend our claim to include the special dipsy doodle wave on the side of the Chuck 'Do. We (probably acting through a patent attorney or agent) could then either make arguments to show why the Chuck 'Do is so distinctive, and that the combination of the Alex Trebek bouffant, Joe Garagiola side look and the Vanna White cowlick don't even begin to disclose (suggest) this fabulous new 'do. If the examiner believes all of the components exist in other patented hairstyles, the claim is rejected. They'd check on Alex Trebek, Vanna White and maybe even the old Bill Cullen hairdo to see if the Chuck 'Do was obvious over one of those old game show 'dos. So, if the Chuck Woolery hairdo has four distinctive components, the patent examiner tries to find them elsewhere. and foreign patents to see if there are similar or identical inventions. In the patent office, an examiner would do a search of prior U.S. Prior art is anything that existed before the invention did, and that includes prior patents, publications and products. Obviousness is a subjective standard which, like the Supreme Court's obscenity definition, is not susceptible to an easy definition, but examiners say they know an obvious patent claim when they see it. If it's obvious, we don't get the patent. Third, we have to figure out whether the hairdo is "obvious" to one skilled in the art of hairdos-someone who knows all the "prior art" hairdos. Imagine if for 20 years no one else could have a hairdo like Woolery's-sounds like it might well be in the public interest. Patent Office (acting for the benefit of all the people and government) is that the inventor gets a monopoly on the invention for a limited time (20 years for the utility patent and 14 years for the design patent) if the inventor discloses to the general public how to recreate the invention after the patent expires. Why? Because you can't get a patent for reinventing the wheel, the beehive hairdo or the "Woolery Wooly Chunk." Second, we have to figure out if the hairdo is novel. However, if the hairdo is only really there to complement a pronounced chin, then it's ornamental. If Woolery's hair is able to maintain its shape under hot TV lights, refract the bright spotlights into attractive shapes, or cushion the fall of a suicidal game show contestant, then we could say that it is functional. An ornamental design may be a part of something which has some utility, but it contains additional decorative elements separate from the functional parts. So, how do we patent Chuck Woolery's hairdo?įirst, we have to determine if the hairdo is a "functional" design or an "ornamental" design. Many of the most valuable patents are relatively simple and elegant. So don't think that because a new invention doesn't require elaborate mechanical gears or electrical circuitry, it isn't patentable. patents issued since 1976 (the year that the patent database is searchable back to), 179 are related to hairdos. It wasn't clear if it was a serious question or an attempt at humor, but as I am an intellectual property lawyer, the question tickled my little grey cells.Īs odd as this may seem, of the U.S. It was posed by a DesignBoxer who was acting as if they were game show host Chuck Woolery, he of the high-volume wraparound slick 'do. The question of whether you can patent a particular hairstyle came up in a weekly DesignBox creative session.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |