I don't believe that there has been any prior art for this specific method of swinging sideways on a swing, but I believe this patent should fail the obviousness threshold. Any ordinary adolescent (with an ordinary imagination) who has been on a swing set has used the swing in both a traditional forward-backward motion as well as in a non-directional, side-to-side way. The patent calls for pulling on each side of the swing's chain, although I do not understand how an ordinary person would be able to replicate what the patent calls for, given that it is very difficult to pull on a taut chain and create lateral movement. This seems like a silly patent that should not have been granted based on sheer obviousness of the method alone.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6368227?dq=6368227&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bHODUfTFH8KqiQKdwIHwDQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA
I definitely agree with you in that any child that has ridden a swing has tried swinging in nontraditional directions, making this patent blatantly obvious. It's understandable when complicated but invalid software patents are issued because the examiner gets lost in the nuances, but the issuance of this patent is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI know what the author means by "pulling on a taut chain", I remember doing that as a kid to get interesting motion from the swing. That said, such experiences should cause the patent to fail the obviousness test, as you said. Not sure what was going on here lol.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you that this patent definitely fails the obviousness test here...Probably the people working at the USPTO does not have a regular childhood...or maybe they are just judging this invention based on the non-obvious technical aspects of the swing.
ReplyDeletethis is silly. any kid and practically every kid has done these things without ever being taught it. it definitely does not pass the nonobviousness
ReplyDeleteI agree, even though the method of swinging on a swing is different because it emphasizes a sideways, lateral motion, surely prior art is clear with children messing around on swings.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure it does violate prior art. Some child, somewhere has definitely thought of this and implemented it. How can they grant such patents!? With every post I read, I find it even more incredulous as to what is going through the inventor and the patent officer's minds!
ReplyDelete