Assuming that a Halloween mask with an LED light had not already been previously established, I believe that this patent would be fairly legitimate--it would combine two pieces of prior art, a scary Halloween mask and an light source. These two items are in very different fields--one is a cosmetic figure that allows for a frightening effect and the other is a nearly universal product with industrial and residential applications. However, the patent is somewhat obvious, especially when considering that such a mask would be used primarily at night, and a light source would be required for the mask to take full effect--therefore an ordinary person with an ordinary level of imagination would probably figure out a way to keep the mask illuminated in darkness.
The second function of the mask, to improve driver visibility to seems to be a trivial improvement, but still contributes to the legitimacy of the patent.
http://www.google.com/patents/US6035447?pg=PA2&dq=6035447&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mXODUeSEJ4SLiAKw5IFw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA
I understand how this patent could be "useful", but this patent seems borderline obvious, because flashing Halloween masks seem like a logical next step. However for the most part I agree that this seems like a trivial patent.
ReplyDeleteIs it just me or hasn't everyone seen these for a while? I feel like I definitely have seen this in cartoon shows and even at knotts scary farm. But hey I guess the people granting this patent would not be well versed in either of those.
ReplyDeleteI would think such glowing Halloween masks would be invented already. It's interesting that something so intuitive that someone would patent it. I agree with Taylor and Christopher that this seems like a trivial patent.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the above comments. A mask with a light source seems obvious, but I don't know when this patent was issued. If this was patented back when portable light sources and battery packs were hard to come by, then I can see how this could be seen as a legitimate patent. On the other hand, the patent seems obvious if it were more recent.
ReplyDeleteAs a safety device for the user, I believe this use of the patent is useful and novel. Personally, I would not consider an illuminous mask as a safety feature by making the user more visible to drivers at night.
ReplyDeleteThis patent seems too obvious to me. Surely there are costumes that utilize lights to enhance the 'scare factor' of the outfit. I don't think enhancing Halloween partipant visibility is sufficient to warrant a new patent issue.
ReplyDeleteThis is too obvious! And very useless too! It definitely uses prior art, I agree. It might add a scare factor, but that does not warrant a patent!
ReplyDeleteAnother silly patent on a mask of some sort.. I personally think it works better for Halloween and entertainment purposes, as I don't think anyone would actually wear this to make themselves more visible at night. In terms of its obviousness, I think the concept can probably be found in quite a number of prior arts since I have definitely seen masks that light up for similar purposes. Maybe the fact that it's multi-purpose sets it apart from the rest?
ReplyDelete