Why is this patentable?

Because the examiners don't have a clue and rarely check prior art properly.

Having a patent granted does not mean it is an original idea or easily defendable.

Easiest way is to ignore it.

Dave.

Because te patent office accepted it.

It doesn't seem particularly novel, (or useful for that matter)

Bye. Jasen

WHY would one want to get around it?

Johnn

So the hum can have that nice soft tube sound. What are you, deaf?

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

I prefer my hum to have fine-grained microdynamics, crisp delineation of inner detail, and unfussy, transparent articulation.

John

user-selectable

...and a smooth finish ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Stop it! You're making me hungry.

Oops. Never mind. I see you're talking about wine.

Bob

Not patenable; already been done.

Because patent examiners are idiots.

Ignore it.

Cheers! Rich

You're quoting the abstract. What are the claims? The claims define what's protected. The abstract and the detailed description can talk about all sorts of nonsense, but it's the nonsense in the claims that matters!

Getting patents is a game played by a particular set of rules. The PTO (Patent and Trademark Office) tries to make the rules, but some times the courts step in and change or redefine some of the rules. Oh, the PTO can change the rules along the way, too.

So far, an examiner at the PTO can't just say, "That's crap!" and reject an application. The rules say the examiner has to find a prior art reference, or a combination of prior art references that disclose all the crap in the claims. Then the examiner can say, "That's crap because it's disclosed in xxx," or "That's crap because it's obvious by xxx in light of yyy."

So in the example above, if I were to write a claim for a power supply for a widget, the power supply having a transformer selectively coupled to first and second rectifying means, each of the first and second rectifying means having distinct I/V characteristics, the examiner can't just say, "That's crap, nobody in their right mind would do that!" The examiner needs to find a single reference, or a combination of references that teach the use of a transformer selectively coupled to first and second rectifying means.

If the examiner can't find such a reference, a combination of references, or misread a reference and make believe they've found a reference, then you win, and you get a patent.

Now the PTO (and the courts) are starting to change the rules, allowing examiners to say, in essence, "That's crap!" without having to pull a reference out of their (er... hat). (The case is KSR v Teleflex)