A power supply for use with a musical amplifier includes two user-selectable rectifiers for variously enhancing sound generated by a musical instrument such as a guitar, or by recorded musical material which in either case consists of electrical signals applied to a vacuum tube amplifying apparatus. The first of two rectifiers comprises one or more thermionic vacuum tube devices, depending upon power needs, while the second rectifier is comprised of solid-state silicon diodes. A switch circuit enables the user to select which of the two rectifier devices is better suited to the contemporaneous use of the amplifier.
Why is something like this patentable? How would one get around it?
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food
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)
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.