Patent of the Day: Portable Miniature Urinal
On this day in 1956 the patent for the Portable Miniature Urinal was granted. U.S. Patent No. 2,769,982.
The Portable Miniature Urinal was invented by John R. Gossett, of Orange City, California. This patent application was granted on November 13, 1956 as U.S. Patent No. 2,769,982.
This invention was primarily designed for toddler boys who are toilet training. There has long existed a need, it is believed, to bring into use a miniature trainee-type urinal for boys. It is therefore an object of the instant invention to provide just such a device, one which is easy to pick up and carry from place to place, one which acquaints users with the practice of standing up and using a urinal similar to those commonly employed in men’s toilets in offices, factories, hospitals and elsewhere.
This Portable Miniature Urinal is designed to go anywhere, including the car if need be. It is designed similar to a cabinet with closing doors and a flat bottom which can be placed on many surfaces. It also comes with a nail hole whereby the urinal may be attached to and suspended from a vertical wall at desired elevation.
In addition to keeping this patent novel they have also kept it sanitary by having a simple and practical semi-circular member as a so-called splashboard and a dished aperture basin at the bottom thereof with the apertures arranged to empty into a readily insertable and removable fluid trapping and collection drawer. This Portable Miniature Urinal has thought of everything from splashboards to drawers to put items in.
Even though this invention was created with toddler boys in mind I think this could come in very handy for men of all ages. This invention could be used at tailgates, camping trips, outdoor parties etc., where the average Port-a-Potty may not be available.
Although I am not sure I would want to be the one to clean this item I can definitely see how it would be a very useful tool for toilet training. 
Patent of the Day: Electric Motor Fan
On this day in 1889 the patent for the Electric Motor Fan was granted. U.S. Patent No. 414,758.
The Electric Motor Fan was invented by Philip Diehl, of Elizabeth, New Jersey. This patent application was granted on November 12, 1889 as U.S. Patent No. 414,758.
Mr. Diehl’s invention has for its object to provide an electric motor which may be cheaply constructed and which is more particularly intended for running a rotary fan, the parts of the motor being so arranged that they can be conveniently assembled or taken apart. Mr. Diehl also constructed and arranged the parts of the device constituting the complete electric fan that the fan proper may be at a desired height of the ceiling from which it is to be suspended and at the same time have the fan-carrying shaft so short that it will have but little weight.
This invention, as we know, can be a life saver on those unbearably hot days but back when Mr. Diehl invented the Electric Motor Fan it wasn’t used in homes. The electricity in homes was very expensive and used for lighting so fans were typically used in factories, hotels and restaurants to keep the workers cool. Around the 1920’s is when fans started being introduced into homes, but not just anyone could afford a fan, they were seen mostly in the houses of the wealthy.
The Great Depression did not do the fan industry any favors either. It wasn’t until World War II that fans started making their way into the homes of everyday people. With the war going on people were working overtime and could now afford the electricity needed to run the fan.
Fans started to lose their popularity in homes when central air conditioning came around but they eventually made a steady comeback. People want fans in their houses now so they can save on their energy bills. Running a fan is less expensive than running the air conditioner and they are very affordable.
Patent of the Day: Flower Structure
On this day in 1890 the patent for Flower Structure was granted. U.S. Patent No. 440,141.
The Flower Structure was invented by John A. Dearborn, of Kansas City, Missouri. This patent application was granted on November 11, 1890 as U.S. Patent No. 440,141.
This invention is designed for and adapted to the culture and display of flowering plants, and is specifically styled “florum.”
The ultimate and highest end of the cultivation of flowers is to minister pleasure to the mind; to gratify the aesthetic element of the mind, its love of the beautiful through the medium of sight resting on flower-bloom in the midst of its foliage surroundings.
Not all forms of presentation or arrangement of flowers make an equally good display. The almost universal display of groups of flowers is in beds and on the plane of the surface of the earth. Such objects are always more or less beautiful and pleasing; but however large such beds, and however varied in kind and species and color markings the flower composing them may be, the one thing they need, in order to their greatest beauty and the most pleasing effect, is what in sculpture is known as “higher relief” – that is, distinctiveness of outline to groups as art units and, as far possible, to individual flowers in the groups.
His invention had a series of frames so that they were not just flat, they had levels and dimensions to almost give a pyramidal outline. The frames were also angled in some places as to allow for depth in the display. Once the frames are set, they are filled with soil and dirt and the flowers are added from there. Different species of flowers are planted in different spaces to allow for height etc.
Clearly from this detailed description above you can tell that Mr. Dearborn was an artist. He didn’t want to just settle for the average arrangement of flowers. He wanted his arrangements to be pieces of art and wanted to invent something that allowed others to create the same thing.
Patent of the Day: Shoe Lacing Hook
On this day in 1903 the patent for Shoe Lacing Hook was granted. U.S. Patent No. 743,627.
The Shoe-Lacing Hook was invented by Joseph W. Edgerton, of Grand Island, Nebraska. This patent application was granted on November 10, 1903 as U.S. Patent No. 743,627.
The object of the Shoe-Lacing Hook is to provide a hook of the character specified which in use will permit the lacing to yield, and thus to cause the shoe to be easy and comfortable to the wearer, obviating binding over the instep and lateral cutting of the lacing.
A further object is to provide a shoe-lacing hook which shall embody simplicity of construction, efficiency and durability in use, readiness of manufacture, and ease of attachment to the shoe.
After celebrating “Back to the Future Day” I am left to wonder if this invention could be helpful in the patenting of the Automatic Lacing System for shoes. Although Mr. Edgerton was not cited in Nike’s version of this patent I feel as the patent develops his invention could plays a small part in it.
As fashion trends progress boots have been making a big comeback. Army boots are back in style, Doc Martins have also started making their way back in, thank God I saved all mine from high school! Almost all of these boots have the Shoe Lacing Hook on them. Boots are not just for fashion, you can see the Shoe Lacing Hook on work boots for military personnel, police and firemen, as well as workers doing manual labor. The Shoe Lacing Hook is designed for comfort and ease and those who are using boots for work can appreciate that.
Joseph Edgerton's invention was able to impact more than just shoes. He has been cited in multiple patents, specifically No-Tie Sports Goal, U.S. Patent No. 4,241,916. The netting for the goal is passed through a series of cord loops which allows the net to be either spring-tight or loose depending on the sport.
Patent of the Day: Safe or Vault
On this day in 1897 the patent for Safe or Vault was granted. U.S. Patent No. 593,200.
The Safe or Vault was invented by George L. Damon, of Boston Massachusetts. This patent application was granted on November 9, 1897 as U.S. Patent No. 593,200.
The Safe or Vault has for its object to provide a burglar-proof closure for receptacles, such as safe-deposit vaults or safes, the same being applicable to vestibule closures employing an additional or inner door or to serve as a single door for closing the receptacle.
In carrying out the invention Mr. Damon employed a housing for the door, which will protect its bearings and other working parts, formed with a hood or pocket of sufficiently strong construction to withstand attack from the outside and which may also accommodate suitable elevating mechanism above the door.
The original purpose of the Safe or Vault was to keep burglars away from people’s intimate valuables, documents, and information. It has now advanced so much that almost anyone can own a Safe or Vault to keep their personal items safe with them at home.
Since Mr. Damon’s invention in 1897 we have moved from wooden vaults with a simple lock and key to modern metallurgy vaults with intricate locking mechanisms. These intricate locking mechanisms have become computerized and have become so advanced they can work based off a DNA imprint or even voice recognition. You see safes and vaults everywhere now; they are in schools, casinos, small businesses, even houses. Some safes have become so advanced they have been able to withstand nuclear blasts as well as nuclear testing.
People have even taken the Vault or Safe to an entirely different level creating “safe rooms” in their houses. These rooms are designed to protect homeowners by withstanding almost every element imaginable. They are able to maintain their own power source, their own air filtration system and I’m sure in the most advanced systems maintain their own plumbing.
A Closer Look into Patents and Non-Practicing Entities
Due in large part to serious misunderstandings of the law and a concerted effort by potential licensees who believe vilifying patent holders to be a cheaper alternative, the very concept of patents has taken a beating in the public consciousness. Conceptually, a patent is intended to incentivize research and development by allowing the patent owner a period of exclusivity to recover the cost of development in exchange for full public disclosure of how to make and use the invention. Patents also promote experimentation by competitors to find alternative solutions to the same problem. Patents are generally monetized either by practicing the invention (making a product) or licensing the invention (granting someone else the right to make a product).
Recently, the avenue of licensing an invention has come under attack in the form of a public outcry against “patent trolls.” As with most such public attacks, the definition of a patent troll is left entirely up to the imagination; except that it’s very bad and there are lawyers involved. To the small business man, a patent troll is someone who threatens a patent infringement lawsuit over some activity that the business man never even knew was patented; to the general public a patent troll is someone who buys patents to demand license fees and never makes a product. Even the word “troll” is intended to invoke a fairly unpleasant image. But all entities are not created equal. Let’s remove the rhetoric and examine a rarely contemplated part of the patent world.
First, a more concrete definition: a non-practicing entity is an organization that exists to own patents and license those patents for a profit. Non-practicing entities do not intend to develop or produce new products. What then is the value of non-practicing entities to society?
Non-practicing entities can acquire patents one of two ways: they can hire engineers solely for the purpose of thinking of patentable subject matter; or they can buy existing patents. In the first case, a company that employs engineers to think of inventions is doing exactly what the patent laws intended. There is substantively no difference to the public if those inventions are practiced by the inventor or a licensee; the important point is that ideas now exist that might not have existed otherwise, and they will eventually be free to everyone.
In the second case, the non-practicing entity is providing a market for patents that otherwise would not exist. Patents are notoriously difficult to value because there is no fluid secondary market. Furthermore, the more conceptually valuable a patent might be (imagine a single patent that applied to the entire internet) the more expensive and impractical it is for a single entity or person to implement. Obviously large entities with substantial patent portfolios have little need for a secondary patent market, but individuals often cannot capitalize on their inventions or fight protracted legal battles with large entities over the validity of their patents. Non-practicing entities can conglomerate many disparate patents from many different inventors within a particular field. Without non-practicing entities to promote inventions in those patents, some or even most might languish in obscurity for their entire twenty year term.
We have made a sociological bargain that the public disclosure of a patent is worth the inconvenience of a limited monopoly. Having received the public disclosure, we cannot complain that the patent holder demands payment to use it, nor should we demand that the owner practice the invention or give up the patent: some people are good at ideas and bad at execution; it would be an additional burden on society to have a great invention only available from a single source that is incompetent at providing it.
The contrary position seems largely based on the erroneous notion that many patents cover “obvious” or ubiquitous ideas.
Patents mostly cover iterative improvements to existing technology. However, in new, quickly developing fields, patents may cover a relatively broader scope because the inventions tend to be of a higher level and more transformative. At the same time, rapid technological development in the field, coupled with multi-year delays in patent prosecution, tend to make patented inventions seem “obvious” when they issue. In patent law “obvious” has a special meaning: a claimed invention is “obvious”, is there some combination of references, available at the time of the invention, that teaches or suggests all of the claimed features. During examination, the patent examiner looks for published documents that teach the features of the claimed invention, and some reasonable motivation to combine the references. In new fields of technology, available publications are just not as extensive.
A patent application filed today probably won’t be examined for two years, and may go through another year or two of prosecution before it issues. Of course technology from four years ago seems ubiquitous today, but only because someone invented it four years ago.
Whether or not a patent is valid, and whether or not someone actually infringes that patent, are legal questions. But the notion that a patent owner is not entitled to compensation for use of a patented technology because everyone uses it is absurd. Transformative technology is what we demand from inventors.
Patent of the Day: Shaving Implement
On this day in 1921 the patent for Shaving Implement was granted. U.S. Patent No. 1,690,133.
The Shaving Implement was invented by Jacob Schick, from Stamford, Connecticut. This patent application was granted on November 6, 1928 as U.S. Patent No. 1,690,133.
The Shaving Implement was designed to provide a shaving implement that does not require the usual prior application of lather or its equivalent to the face as the cutting of the hair can be done while the face and hairs are comparatively dry.
This invention operates on the principle that a hair is brittle tubular filament having a central medulla or pith usually containing some air and can be severed by engaging opposed sides of the hair and snipping it, sometimes without cutting all the way through. A hair when so snipped, will part with a slight spring as will any brittle filament and a sharp edge on one side with a stationary or moveable edge on the other side will snip the hair.
Schick has become a household name when it comes to razors and other shaving products. Jacob Schick has been cited on multiple other patents and his original razor inventions have opened the doors for others improve, invent and create many other types of razors.
He has also been credited as being one of the first inventors to invent the Shaving Machine (electric razor) U.S. Patent No, 1,757,978. The idea for this razor came to him while he was recuperating from an injury he sustained while doing gold exploration. With time on his hands he drew up plans for the shaver that would be powered by a grapefruit-sized motor. As with a lot of inventions manufacturers rejected the product and he went back to the drawing board to perfect the razor. 1
Norelco took over Schick in 1981 but they have expanded and developed this brand and they are now one of the top leading retailors for razors and shaving products.
[1] http://connecticuthistory.org/jacob-schick-invents-the-electric-razor/
Patent of the Day: Mustache Adjuster
On this day in 1895 the patent for the Mustache Adjuster was granted. U. S. Patent No. 549,148.
The Mustache-Adjuster was invented by James Joseph McCallum, from Belleville, in the country of Hastings, in the Providence of Ontario Canada. This patent application was granted on November 5, 1895 as U.S. Patent No. 549,148. This invention was also granted to James Joseph McCallum in the Dominion of Canada under date of March 4, 1895 No. 48,326.
The Mustache-Adjuster is designed to maintain the bottom of the moustache free from lips when eating and drinking during meals; and it consists, essentially, of a comb of peculiar form designed to be inserted in the mustache and provided with outwardly-extending spring-fingers centrally hinged.
Mr. McCallum states that “the Mustache-Adjuster will consequently be seen that the user of my adjuster may very conveniently at meal-time drink tea or soup or other similar beverages without having his mustache dripping and looking very disgusting, as is very common with gentlemen burdened with an excessive growth of hair on the upper lip.”
We have come a long way in the means of grooming mustaches and facial hair but this invention, even though patented in 1895, still holds significant relevance in today’s time. Facial hair has always been prevalent throughout history from Vikings to Hippies but facial hair has definitely made a noteworthy comeback; gone are the days of clean shaving. The current trend is leaning more towards mustaches and facial hair, whether that be the handlebar mustache, the Fu Manchu, or 5 o’clock shadow, facial hair is back and in a very creative stylish way. There has been a significant surge in the inventions and products that are used to maintain facial hair as well. There are pomades, special tools for shaping and trimming in addition to inventions created to keep clean up neat and easy.
Mustaches have made such a comeback they are being featured on reality television shows. There are even competitions for the grooming and length of them.
Patent of the Day: Bedstead
On this day in 1902 the patent for Bedstead was granted. U.S. Patent No. 712,671.
The Bedstead, was invented by Carl F. Haller, from St. Louis, Missouri. This patent application was granted on November 4, 1902 as U.S. Patent No. 712,671.
This Bedstead is broken up into three sections and two end sections to allow for the bed to be angled and moved into multiple positions. The end section is adapted to telescope or slide into the middle section, while the other end section is so connected with the middle section as to be easily adjustable in the vertical plane. It can also be lengthened or shortened as desired, by moving backward or forward the telescoping foot-section. This Bedstead was able to be angled and reclined so much so that it would transform into a reclining-chair.
One thing that sets this bestead apart from other patented adjustable Bedsteads is the fact that it is divided into three sections and two end sections. This allows the adjustable functions to do a lot more than just move one section of the bed. It is able to be adjusted and reclined in multiple positions and multiple parts of the bed are able to be angled and adjusted separately making it so much more than just a Bedstead. It can now become a reclining-chair, an inclined bed to ease the sleeping position for an elderly person or injured person. Or this Bedstead can even accommodate the needs of someone who may be a bit longer than the average person and needs just a little bit more leg room.
Carl F. Haller has been a great resource in the innovation of adjustable beds and has been cited in numerous patents including Folding Bed, U.S. Patent No. 2,568,546, Reverting Back Sofa Bed, U.S. Patent No. 2,671,288, and Hospital Chair Beds With Articulating Foot Sections, U.S. Patent No. 8,495,774 to name a few.
Patent of the Day: Brassiére
On this day in 1914 the patent for the Brassiére was granted. U.S. Patent No. 1,115,674.
Patent of the Day: Garment Retainer
On this day in 1926 the patent for Garment Retainer was granted. U.S. Patent No. 1,605,763.
Patent of the Day: Pen (Ballpoint Pen)
On this day in 1888 the patent for the Pen was granted. U.S. Patent No. 392,046.