W. Yogi Widodo
Should a patent be something related only to
hi-tech and very complicated inventions?
To answer this question, please remember that the
basic principle of patentability of an invention is to consider its novelty,
inventive steps and industrial applicability.
As we are aware technology has developed rapidly,
therefore there are only few patented inventions are still novel (except in the
fields of bio-technology and bio-genetics). Recently, most patents have only
covered the inventive step and the industrial applicability.
Note that the inventive step of an invention means
that other people have invented it before (so called prior arts), but the new
inventor did some modifications or developments on it so that the new invention
is able to solve the problems that cannot be solved by the prior arts. And it
can be a very simple invention..!
For an example showing that the inventive step does
not need to be hi-tech and complicated, here we will look at US Patent No.
6,415,530 to H. Kevin Coplon (Indonesian), entitled “Method, system and shoe enabling the
determination of fit from outside of the shoe”.
Many types of shoes
are already well known. Some known shoes provide means for determining whether
they fit. However, none of the prior art provides a way to determine whether a
shoe will fit from outside the shoe. For example, a person may be in a hurry
and not want to take the time to try on a shoe. Also, room to try on a shoe may
not be available where the shoe is sold. Also, a shoe may be sold where there
is insufficient experienced staff to help a person choose the correct size. In
addition, a person buying a shoe for a child may not be able to determine the
room within the shoe for growth of a child's foot.
For example, U.S.
Patent No. 5,014,041 to Rosen and U.S. Patent No. 5,084,988 to Berger disclose
shoes that have transparent soles through to the interior of the shoe to show
when a foot has outgrowing a shoe. These patents require that a person wear the
shoe before being able to determine whether they fit. Additionally, Rosen and
Berger suffer from the fact that over time the transparent soles may discolour
and get scuffs so that a person could not look through them.
The uses of
removable insoles or socks with printed length areas which are removable from
the inside of the shoe are known in the industry. In addition, U.S. Patent No.
2,464,571 to Gardner Gardner Gardner
Patterns on the outsole of a shoe are also known. U.S. Patent No.
4,266,349 to Schmohl discloses a profile pattern on a sole that has a plurality
of concentric circles. The profile pattern in Schmohl is irrelevant to the
issue of fit; it used for the absorption and transfer of the forces acting upon
the sole.
None of the devices in the above references solve the problem of
determining whether a shoe will fit a person's foot without the person trying
on the shoe. Furthermore, none of the devices solve the problem of determining
the room for growth that a shoe may have without trying on the shoe. Each of
the prior art references above require a person to try on a shoe at least once.
From the above
illustration and brief description of related arts, we find that the principal
object of this invention is to provide a shoe wherein a person can determine
whether a shoe fits without trying it on. This invention is a system including
a shoe or a shoe with an outsole having a reference gauge at the proximal end
of the outsole for placing the heel of the foot; and a first reference mark at
the distal end of the outsole corresponding to where the toes of the foot should
extend when the heel is placed on the reference gauge to ensure a proper fit of
the shoe on the foot.
Now we can conclude
that a simple invention can be patented also. And furthermore, a patent need
not be related to a hi-tech and very complicated invention. So, let’s invent
and get your inventions patented..!
No comments:
Post a Comment