In this patent, #5356330, the original inventor filed for an Apparatus for simulating a "high five" on December 7th, 1993. This patent was later published on October 18th, 1994 and is rather amusing after reading through the claims and description. The abstract mentions that the patent is for "An apparatus for simulating a 'high five' including a lower arm portion having a simulated hand removably attached" which has applications when an individual does not have a second participant to share a high five with. While I struggle to think of how this apparatus would be used in the real world, or who the customers of such a silly patent would be--it is clear after analyzing the claims and images that this truly is a silly patent.
Non-Obviousness, Prior Art, Reasonable, Novel?
This patent appears to be very unique and it would be difficult to find any prior art to find similarities. In terms of non-obviousness, it does not appear to be an obvious patent. In terms of its reasonability, it seems very unreasonable and not very novel. It is quite impressive as to how it received approval from the USPTO or why they believed filing for a patent was a smart business decision.
Claim Analysis:
Claim 1:
"An apparatus for simulating a "high five" comprising:
a first, movable arm portion for simulating a forearm, said first arm portion having a simulated hand secured thereto;
a second, immovable arm portion for simulating an upper arm;
a mounting arrangement for mounting said second arm portion to a supporting surface;"
Claim 7:7. An amusement device comprising:
a first, movable arm portion having a simulated hand secured thereto;
a second, immovable arm portion;
a mounting arrangement for mounting said second arm portion to a supporting surface;
a pivot member for pivotally securing said first arm portion to said second arm portion, wherein said first arm portion is adapted to be pivotally displaced about said pivot member along a single plane when struck by a user, with said second, immovable arm portion remaining stationary;
a stop arrangement for limiting the pivotable displacement of said first arm portion along said single plane;"
Both of these claims outline the mechanics behind the high five and the first describes it as an apparatus while claim 7 outlines its uses as an amusement device. While the claims appear to be technical and specific, the larger absurdity is apparent.
Conclusion:
The patent "Apparatus for Simulating a "high five" clearly fits the definition of a silly patent. It does not appear to serve any useful purpose and simply is not a useful patent that anyone would likely build upon or want to license.
This is hilarious. A machine to simulate high fives for you. What is the purpose? I don't think that there is any situation in which someone would need to practice high five son their own. Could it be a moral booster? Maybe someone has clinical depression and needs a pick-me-up from their mechanical arm? I dont think so. On to the next one.
ReplyDelete