|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
Yes, the computer program is irrelevant. First, you have a washing machine with
electronically controllable motions -- send a signal, plunger goes up; send a
signal, basin spins; send a signal, valve opens to let water or soap in or out.
But that's hardly innovative, and is extremely obvious. There are off-the-shelf
devices to do all those things. Does this designer have a NEW way of doing all
of those?
Then you have a computer sending signal sequences. Wow, that's new--NOT. That's
what computers do.
Then you have a program running the computer. Any first-year computer science
student, and a small minority of MBA graduates with three lifetimes of
postgraduate work, could write a program to emit any given sequence on any given
interval. Beyond trivial, and beyond obvious.
Finally, you have something NEW: a particular shape of beater, a particular
shape of tub, that--you assert--go through a particular set of motions to clean
clothes more thoroughly than previous automatic washers. PATENTABLE!
Anyone else could use their own random sets of valves and solenoids and
microprocessors to control their own washer -- your patent doesn't detail that
stuff because it's neither non-obvious nor germane to the invention. But nobody
could copy your tub or plunger shape, and nobody could copy the sequence of
motions those made (because that's the innovative part, and presumably that's
where the research and cleverness came in. (The rest is all hiring junior
programmers and engineers to do what junior engineers and programmers get out of
school knowing how to do.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- A serious answer - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 07:12 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
