There is patent for eating counter apparatus for mobile vending vehicle and seating apparatus therefor issued by the USPTO. This patent is for an eating counter apparatus for mounting to a three or four-wheeled, motorized or pedal-powered vehicle used as at least part of a mobile food vending eatery whereby to utilize the vehicle to provide an eating area for the patrons of the eatery. The eating counter apparatus also may mount a seating apparatus arranged to support seated patrons about the vehicle as they eat at the counter of the eatery vehicle.
This patent, although issued, seems to violate the non-obvious requirement of patents. The idea of this patent really is a combination of 2 commonly seen things: a food stall, and a food truck. Such a simple combination seems quite obvious to a general person. Also linked to this idea of non-obviousness is novelty. Because it is such an easy combination, it is highly likely that such an idea has been thought of before and documented.
With this idea being non-obvious and not novel, it seems highly like that this patent could be invalidated easily when the owner of this patent sues truck vendors for any infringement.
A patent was issued by the USPTO for a method of swing on a swing, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.
When first hearing about this patent, many questions of the validity comes up. Firstly, who would the inventor of this patent go after for cases of infringement? The children playing the swings will be the one who infringe the patent, but it is not realistic that the inventor sue every child who did that. In addition, the inventor cannot go after the people who installed the swing, or the people who made the swings because they did not infringe on the patent.
The non-obviousness and novelty of this patent is also in doubt. It seems that this method may be considered obvious because there are only a few ways you can move a swing. You can move it sideways, up and down, or rotate it with respect to a different axis. This method then falls under the rotation because when one chain is pulled, the swing rotates vertically. Although it seems like an idea that is out of the box, it really is not because of the limited options there are to move the swing. When it comes to novelty, it further does not make sense because even a little kid can accidentally pull a chain on one side because of his/her playfulness, and see the effects. This then causes it to not be a new idea anymore.
With this being said, it seems like this patent for swinging is unrealistic and a stupid one. No one can ever earn royalties from having this patent, and it should not even have been valid to begin with. I wonder how it was first approved.
