Three Modest Proposals for the Health & Saftey of Your Child

Once, about a year ago, I was walking home from work and saw a mother with an infant in a carrier on her back and a toddler leashed to her hand. The toddler was sitting down and yelling "NO NO NO NO" as loud as he could and the poor mother was trying to get him to stand back up and keep walking. As I was silently sympathizing with her, the infant on her back starting crying & screaming and began to repeatedly hit her on the back of the head. The most depressing part was that the woman didn't even look like she noticed the 20 pound monster on her back that was savaging her head and eardrums. My heart went out to her and when I got home, I kissed my girlfriend and thanked her for not wanting kids.

It solidly reinforced my opinion that children are non-stop problem creating human larva whose sole purpose is to drain your bank account, ruin your sleep, projectile vomit on you, and poop. Always with the poop. Again, not that I'm a father myself. But should the day ever come where I am put in charge of my own little dirt child, the US patent database has a wealth of great parenting ideas. I humbly present the following three. And if you got the Jonathan Swift allusion in the title, good work.

 

click for larger

So you're the parent of a young larval human who has just learned to walk, and that might be a problem. You are a busy adult human with real adult human things to do. Maybe you live on the top floor of an asbestos factory and all the stairwells are unlocked for easy infant access. Maybe you rent a Dickensian tenement and the four other families you share it with have vowed to eat your child if they stray into their side of the room again. Or maybe the shirtless poolboy just arrived and you just mixed up a bunch of daiquiris to ply him with.

What ever your situation, the Infant Restraining Device, US 2,650,590 to Leroy and Dorthy Moore has the solution. The Moores feel your pain and have devised a way to keep that damn troublemaker in his crib/pen/cage. Now to be fair to them, it is not as terrible as the name suggests. It is two buttoned ankle bracelets linked by an elastic strap. It is intended to allow the child to walk normally, but not allow them to throw one leg over the side of the crib for escape. Why haven't you seen these for sale at Babies 'R' Us? The only reasonable explanation is that the diabolical fiends in the crib industry have intimidated the Moore family into submission rather than fix their defective and dangerous crib designs.

click for larger

So that brings us to entry number two: US 1,448,235 to Emma Read, entitled Portable Baby Cage. This clearly follows in the grand tradition of Jonathan Swift as well as the Dickensian theme of the Infant Restraining Device. Issued in 1922, it addresses the problem that "babies and young children, who at the present are being raised in large apartments, are not going outdoors for their proper fresh air and exercise."

click for larger

Emma goes on: "With these facts in view it is the purpose of the present invention...to be suspended upon the exterior of a building adjacent an open window, wherein the baby or young child may be placed."

In other words, this is a tin roofed, chicken wire walled cage that is cantilevered outside your window like an air conditioner for your baby to sit in. I won't go into an analysis of the support structure for holding it in place, mainly because I don't think it is necessary. This is clearly an incredible idea that has been systematically suppressed by the special interest groups of Big Infant.

click for larger

Finally, there is this. The Holy Grail of patents. A crown jewel of such staggering genius that it will likely never be equaled. US 3,216,423 to George and Charlotte Blonsky, entitled Apparatus For Facilitating The Birth Of A Child By Centrifugal Force. Anyone with a passing understanding of physics should be able to grasp this one. A rotating bed is placed within a ring with the woman's head at the center. The bed has hand grips, a chest restraint, stirrups, and a net between the woman's legs. You can see the net (element number 97) best in the figure to the right.

The two balls with the bars between them that pass over the woman's face in fig. 1 to the right isn't a mask or something. It is a centrifugal governor that smooths and controls the rotation of the device via centrifugal deflection. That means it is steam powered! Fig. 2 to the left shows that they are actually quite a ways above the woman's face. Fig. 2 also shows the wonderful steampunk chains and pulleys underneath the table. Fig. 3 below shows the governor deflecting due to rotation as well as a simply scandelous shot of the fetus-catching net.

click for larger

click for larger

 The operation is pretty simple: The woman is placed so that her womb is radially offset from the center of rotation. So when the table is turned, outwardly directed force is generated on the fetus. Think of it like giving birth by doing an upright bungee jump (I should file an application for that!). The enclosed text to the left reads: "The bottom or closed end of the net is lined with a thick wad of cotton. When the fetus leaves the mother's vagina and lands on the cotton bed in the net, its weight, as a result of the rotation of the machine, exerts a radial centrifugal force of the bottom of the elastic net." This automatically stops the rotation.

It goes on: "A suitable hand brake is provided adjacent to the controller to enable the operator to stop quickly the inertial rotation of the machine after the current is switch off either by the new born child, or by the operator on instruction from the gynecologist in charge of the operation, or by suitable automatic means which come into operation when the rate of revolution of the machine, either through mistake or malfunction, exceeds the amount considered safe for the particular patient thereon."

Finally, there is a table that correlates the RPM of the machine to the  acceleration applied to the fetus. The acceleration is measured in both ft/sec^2 as well as G-force. The middle RPM range is 1.04 revolutions per second, or 4 G's of force. The space shuttle undergoes 3 G's during both launch and re-entry, for comparison. An F-1 car tops out at 5-6 G's. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?!

Crazy Oddball Impossible Application round-up

Since November of 2000, all applications for patents are published after 18 months by default. As an Applicant, you can choose to forgo that for various reasons by sacrificing some other options down the line. But none of that is important right now because easily 75% of applications are published, probably quite a bit more. But as a consequence, applications which will likely never be granted a patent (and thus never be made public) are now published. And if you have a certain amount of money, you can file an application with the US Patent and Trademark Office, and they will examine it. Thems the rules.

Now there are real names attached to these and it's not my intent to slander or unfairly represent anything they applied for. Mainly because I don't think I need to; they speak for themselves. There's also a bunch of them so there's no way to do each justice. They are all really good though. If you're actually interested in one, you can use the links to Google Patents (Our Most Beneficent Overlord, peace upon Them).

click for larger

Number 1: "Magnetic Vortex Wormhole Generator" to John Quincy St.Clair of the Hyperspace Research Institute in San Juan Puerto Rico. Read that last sentence again, out loud. From the drawings, the invention seems like two big solenoid coils with a steel triangle between them.

"This energy finds many application in new types of power supplies, inertia-less and mass-less spacecraft, vehicles that can travel light-years by moving out of dimension through hyperspace, surgery-less medical tables, cranes for lifting heavy objects, cold-welded crystals for crystal rotors, folding space waveguides, and electromagnetic field propulsion vehicles using highly relativistic fields."

Those are all good things! Our troubles are over!

click for larger

Number 2: "Universal Epistemological Machine (A.K.A. Android)" to William Datig. It seems like it's supposed to be a "universal machine translator" like in Star Trek or something, but with the (A.K.A. Android) actually in the title, I'm not sure.

It has a lot of really bizarre flow charts though. The one on the cover is roughly "General forms of human beings" to "The Human Experience" to "U.G. Structure of Universal Epistemological Machine" with the tag of "Specification of the UM in existential form of enablement default and existential modes". This then evolves somehow into [Economy] [E=mc*2] and [y=f(x)]. And that is literally the first page alone.

There are over 200 following flow charts. Pages and pages filled with phrases like "RG Continuum" and "Non-Real Form" and "Future Art" and "Connectedness by DSXS of CTS" and "Phenomenology of Correspondence (H Determination)" and, really appropriately, "Endless Word Stream." And those are just the drawings. There are still 200 pages of text following.

While the examples are technically endless, every one of its 400 pages is filled with it. It's astonishing. Here's the link again if you don't believe me.

click for larger

Number 3: "Method of Recording and Saving of Human Soul for Human Immortality and Installation For It" to Alexander Alexandrovich Bolonkin. Following up a 400 page behemoth, this underdog weighs in at only 10. As an examiner, I personally respect brevity. *insert Big Lebowsky quote here*

This one does appear to be from a non-native English speaker, and that shouldn't be held against him. It would also be hilarious if was a native speaker, because he's from Brooklyn. But his intent and descriptions are clear. From paragraphs 37-38:

"To support the brain and body, humans spend about 99% of their time and energy, and eventually what knowledge is gained is taken to the grave in death. There is only one solution to this problem - re-write all of the brain information (our soul) in more strongly based storage." He then launches into how he knows this much storage isn't possible yet but then somehow gets past that and goes into this:

"It would be easy to attached a video recorder and microphone to a man's forehead and then attach sensors to the body and record all that he sees, hears, speaks, his feelings, reactions, and activity. And then re-write this information into a personal hard drive... at the end of each day." And because what we do and say makes us who we are, recording that is "backing-up" our souls. Moving on.

click for larger

Number 4: "Multi-Chambered Personal Survival Device and an Orally Inflated, Flush Mounted, Hybrid Bladder" to William Courtney. I don't even know where to start with this one. At least conceptually I think I understood what the other ones were for. Maybe not #2, I guess. But this...

It looks like some rubber and neoprene monstrosity to keep you alive out at sea for... well, forever I guess. I don't know. He's got a bunch of bags hooked up to his mouth and ears (I think that's what I'm seeing) and seems like he's encased in a Michelin Man consume. And no, I don't know what the cylindrical container under the series of what I'll call "face bags" is supposed to do. The phrase "hybrid bladder" in the title makes me a little worried though. SUPER!

And last but certainly not least (and I mean that this time), number 5: "Godly Powers" to Christopher Roller. No figures needed for this one! The entire abstract follows (the italics are mine). If you've actually read this far, don't stop now.

'Christopher Anthony Roller is a godly entity. "Granters" had been given my powers (acquired my powers) (via God probably). These "granters" have been receiving financial gain from godly powers. These "granters" may be using their powers without morals. Chris Roller wants exclusive right to the ethical use and financial gain in the use of godly powers on planet Earth. The design of godly-products have no constraints, just like any other invention, but the ethic consideration of it's use will likely be based on a majority vote of a group, similar to law creation. The commission I require could range from 0-100% of product price, depending on the product's value and use.'

And this goes into some weird thing about magicians and illusions that doesn't make any sense. Also, he apparently has a lawsuit against David Copperfield. The whole thing is only 2 pages. Here's the rest. I wish I could see the written history of this particular application because I'm sure Mr. Roller had some interesting things to say in response to the examiner's initial rejection.

**SUPER IMPORTANT INTERNET UPDATE** Chris Roller has some youtube videos! Here's an interview of him by some random goofball. And here's one from some celebrity tabloid show about his lawsuit against Copperfield. His website is mytrumanshow.com in which he explains that he is, actually, the "Truman" which The Truman Show (yes, the Jim Carrey movie) is based off.

The well of material is deep but the time is short. Thanks for reading if you actually read this far.

Refridgerated Clothing (need more be said?)

click for larger

So, the last entry I wrote up won my office's "WTF Patent of the month" contest. It would be more correctly call "WTF Patent of the tri-month" considering how often it usually happens. Much like this blog shouldn't be called "Updated Weekly". But amongst other entries, it won against this, US 2,731,808, entitled "Refrigerated Clothing" and that is stiff competition. Prize for winning was a Starbucks gift card so you can imagine it was one of the greatest days of my life. And to think my mom said "Don't get into engineering. It'll never pay."

More to the point is this suit of armor to the right. It's basically a heat exchanger powered by dry ice strapped on the back of a heavy jacket. The fabric is layered to conduct sublimating CO2 from dry ice down along the body (because cold air sinks). From here, it either falls out the bottom (shown to the right) or will be sufficiently warmed that it will naturally rise back out the outer layer (shown in the image below). Personally I have doubts that it would be warm enough to circulate by natural convection like that, but that's hardly the most important part.

click for larger

That part involves the helmet you can have (shown left) and if you click to enlarge the image it will open in the same window because I can't figure out how to make it open up in a new one thank you very much Google "Blogger" agh! Does anyone reading this happen to know?

...sorry about that. Where was I? You can add a helmet that needs a pressure relief valve on the top of it. The valve makes sense if you understand what dry ice does in a closed container and room temperature. But the consequences are so ridiculous that I can hardly believe it. He is suggesting that we strap on a jacket with multiple layers of heavy & stiff insulation, a backpack full of dry ice, and a helmet that every few minutes pops up to release a burst of fog. And it would probably be a decent cloud of fog. It sounds like something out of a Terry Gilliam movie, like Brazil or Time Bandits. Actually now that I think about it, it's more 12 Monkeys than anything.

 

But here's the most important thing: Enclosing someone's face, or even flowing modest amounts of CO2 past their face for an extended period of time is really obviously a bad idea. Like "it will kill you" level of bad ideas. Add a heavy pack to the strain of getting enough oxygen and you're setting yourself up for a party. That's of course assuming the backpack doesn't explode, or at least spring a violent leak if the pressure relief valve fails.

click for larger

There are some descriptions of the helmet and relief valve to the left along with a description of the drip pipe for condensation. I actually think I laughed out loud (or "lol'ed" for you hip kids out there in Internetland) when I read that.

click for larger.

To the right is a description of the "apparatus" which is an exceedingly common word in patents. But it never seemed quite as appropriate as it does for this.

Simply hilarious.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

click for larger

I have a saying that inevitably comes up when I talk about patents for long enough: When the government is deciding whether to grant a patent, "Is this a good idea?" is not a check box that has to be filled in yes/no. It's just not a requirement. And this is an amazing example of that from 1882. Props go out to Melissa for showing it to me. GOOD WORK! Reason for Awesomeness 1: The date, Dec 26th, 1882. The day after Christmas. 1882 was also the year Jesse James was shot, for perspective.

  

click for larger

Reason for Awesomeness 2: Why did he chose a tiny, cute field mouse for the animal to kill? Why not a big rat or a raccoon? The inventor, James Williams, is from Fredonia, Texas. And I have to imagine that Texas had better stuff to shoot at in 1882. It really does put the meaning in the word "overkill."

click for larger

Reason for Awesomeness 3: "This invention may also be used in connection with a door or window, so as to kill any person or thing opening the door or window to which it is attached." (highlighted right). Again, 1882 was the year Jesse James was shot. My mind is blown like a guy who got drunk and forgot he set one of these bad boys up in his barn.

Before there was Tiger Blood, there was only Tiger Balm

Click for a larger copy

Per standard Patent Office practice, I present Charlie Sheen's patent: Chapstick Dispensing Apparatus. I say "per standard practice" because, like the USPTO, I'm getting around to this long after everyone else stopped caring about it. For the Office that usually means two years late, but with Charlie Sheen a few weeks appear to have been enough. That's more than enough time for him to get boo'ed off the stage in Detroit and all of his (un-paid) friends to abandon him to the wolves. And in case you didn't know, Sheen's real name is Carlos Irwin Estevez, as evidenced by this patent.

Honestly there's not too much to say about this beyond the fact that Sheen has a patent. It's not as awesome as van Halen's but the subject is much more odd. I guess we know what he talks about when he's finally crashed after a 72 hour drug induced sex-fest with whoever he's paying to tag along with him this month. "Hey baby. I know you're tired and probably worried about getting a UTI but I've got this idea for a rad chapstick holding devices for next time we're in the Bahamas." Don't get me wrong: I'm not judging him for those 72 hour drug induced sex-fests. If anything my sarcasm hides a little jealousy. My bet is most guys won't deny it if they're honest. In any case, it's just a chapstick container that has an attached cap, "tactile protrusions" (element number 130) on the side so it is easier to grip, and a place to attach a lanyard. I guess doing coke by ounce makes it tough to hold onto your lip balm after a while.

Click for a larger copy

The cap has a "finger-engaging cradle 102 [attached to] the top cap 100 by a living hinge." By the way, a "living hinge" is a real thing. It's a hinge formed from an integral thin band of material bridging between two thicker materials as opposed to two separate elements joined by a pin, like a door hing.

The patent also goes to great lengths to describe the problems with prior lip balms as highlighted to the right. It's worth reading.

On a more procedural note, work has been kicking my ass recently, and these posts take more time to write up than I'd originally thought. So I apologize about the slow pace of updates. And in the event you did get the "tiger balm" reference in the title and still read this far, I commend you and suggest you watch this.

1. Open Box, 2. Discard Contents, 3. Give Box to Cat

Click for a larger copy

Those who know me well will know I have a bit of a soft spot for cats. There, I said it and I said it on the internet so it must be true. And I've taken more than a little shit in my life for being a heterosexual male who much prefers cats to dogs although I never quite understood why.

Oh wait, I forgot: Cat lovers can be some of the oddest people on Earth. See Exhibit A to the right.

US Patent 5,979,366, titled "Cat Entertainment Box."

Now I don't claim to be unveiling a long kept secret here, but cats fucking love cardboard boxes like dogs love chasing after balls you throw into a lake. I have absolutely no explanation for it, but it has been true of every cat I've ever known (not "known" in the Biblical sense).

And as someone who makes a lot of online purchases, my cats are always rich in cardboard boxes of every imaginable size and shape. This is the point where one would expect me to provide a link to my companion, cat-based blog "Feline 1" which recounts in unending detail the lives of my two cats, Benito Meowsolini and Eva Purrón, but I am not going do that because no such  blog exists and anyone who tells you otherwise is a God damn oath-breaking liar that you should never trust under any circumstances ever.

Click for a larger copy

The drawings are my personal favorite, as usual. Click on the images to the left for a larger copy. It's simple enough that very little elaboration on my part is necessary. It's a cardboard box with a hole in the top and sides, and the sides have a carnival-esque character portrait cutout that the cat sticks its head through. Cat goes in box and hilarity ensues.

What is interesting on a more detailed level is what the patentee regards as their "invention" in this case. I've highlighted it in the image to the right. What has been changed from a cardboard box with holes in 5 of its 6 sides to warrant the issue of patent protection? Does drawing or painting on an existing object alter that object sufficiently to be warranted being called something different? What does simple embellishment create? Thank you for your time and please Exit Through the Gift Shop.

The legalese here must really be respected. A "rectilinear configuration" with a "front face, left face, right face, and rear face." Yea gods, man: you've invented a cube! But wait, these faces have "indicia" and "motifs" on them. But the question remains: does changing the design of an object render it an invention patentable under US law? The question is not one I can voice an opinion on (damn you ethical restrictions! *shakes fist at sky*) but the fact remains that once an application issues as a patent, there is a "strong assumption" that it is valid. That means that it is much harder to invalidate an issued patent than to prevent something from issuing in the first place. But it's also important to remember that a patent is only worth something once you enforce it against someone (read: sue someone), and the courts may disagree with you. So it's always a tricky proposition in the end.

Could you put that cactus closer to my eye please?

When I hear the words "Greenhouse Helmet" I get an odd combination of Pauly Shore, Logan's Run, and Water World in my mind. It's something I picture as having the potential of being good, but actually being an utterly terrible idea for a wide variety of obvious reasons. What about Pauly Shore, Logan's Run and Water World is good and what is bad, either together or apart, I hear you ask? Well that's up to you.

This is remarkably simple in the overall context of patents. It consists of "a transparent dome completely over the head of a person." In this dome, there are shelves where plants are anchored to process the CO2 you exhale and provide you with O2 in an "economical and simple" way. Done and done.


**wipe your hands on your  jeans and exit stage left**

This patent is a small work of art in a vast sea of lesser patents. I say this because, in my personal opinion, it raises far more questions than it could ever hope to answer.

For example: Why, in the wide swath of life which falls under the umbrella of  "small plants," did Waldemar Anguita of Brooklyn N.Y. choose cacti as being the example for plants to secure to a shelf, right by your face? It was a choice, understand. Someone looked at this drawings and thought, "Yep, that is what we are going for."



The action taking place in fig. 1 to the left (click on the picture for a larger version) can only be described as 'jogging' or "calisthenics.' I honestly find it difficult to not be insultingly sarcastic while looking at this product of 1986 from the perspective of 2011. And yes, I'm aware that the perspective on now will be the same from 2036. Deal with it because we are all guilty.

I also can not help but respect the absurdity of the claims (what are the claims?), highlighted to the right. Click on the image for a larger version.

Claim 1: "A greenhouse helment which comprises:
(a) a transparent dome worn completely over the head of a person [read: a plastic fish bowl];

(b) means for securing said dome to said person [read: a chin strap];

(c) means for adequately filtering ambient air having carbon dioxide in and out of said dome to meet the needs of the person [read: the person has enough air];

(d) means for resting at least one plant within a pot placed in said dome so that carbon dioxide of said ambient air will mix with carbon dioxide breathed out by said person to be used by said plant to produce oxygen to be breathed in by said person in addition to the ambient air [read: there's a shelf to put plants on];

(e) means for securing said plants and pot upon said resting means within said dome [read: the plants are 'secured' to the shelf].

The patent coverage ran out in 2006, so your generic brand Greenhouse Helmets can come out of the black market garage sales and out into the daylight of late-night infomercials. May God continue to bless America.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Wretched mortals, prepare your faces for melting

Bow thine heads unworthy, for ye are in the presence of a Rock God. US 4,656,917 issued to one Edward L. Van Halen of Los Angeles, California in the year of our Lord, nineteen and eighty-seven.

The most important thing to say is that this might be the single best patent cover figure I've personally seen. A line drawing of a major musician shredding on the cover of a US legal document is not something that happens very often.

So somewhere between doing stuff like this and kicking David Lee Roth out of the band, Halen filed an application for this patent. It's pretty simple, really: a flap on the bottom of the guitar folds open and supports the guitar horizontally which, according to the abstract "[allows] the player to create new techniques and sounds previously unknown to any player." So show some respect swine and spark your lighter, damn it!

It's not the only one Halen has either. He has a design patent for pegheads as well as a drop key tuning system. Good for him.

How to read a patent

So what's this all about? Well, I come across a bunch of funny, weird, interesting, or just neat patents in my job. They seem to be a big hit with people, ergo I am writing this blog. Because patents are a fairly complex legal document, as an initial formality I'm going to go over how to read one. Don't worry, I'm not planning on being this detailed usually.

There are three basic parts to a patent. The first are the figures. Those are obvious. The second is the specification or the disclosure (read: the words). They describe the invention. The third are the claims. The claims are at the very end of the document and the most important part, legally speaking. They lay out what the patent holder wants for legal coverage, or the right to exclude others from making/selling/etc.

So the patent to the right is US 5,311,807, issued May 17th 1994 to Gottlieb Ruttgerodt of Germany. You can find the whole document here on Google Patents. This is the cover sheet where I've put some markers.

1: The patent number. Numbers are given in sequential order and are currently in the ~7,600,000s or thereabout

2: The first named Inventor from the application. If there are multiple inventors they're listed as Smith et al. which means "Smith and the rest"

3: The title of the patent. This one is "Military Tank" for obvious reasons

4: The full list of Inventors and the Assignee (read: owner) of the patent.

5: The classification of the patent. Every patent is categorized when it issues to aid in examination. This one is in class 89 (Ordinance), subclass 36.08 (Capping and Uncapping which is a specific manner of ammunition loading).

6: The Examiner of the patent. An "Assistant Examiner" listing means that the "assistant" actually examined the application (read: did all the work) and the "primary examiner" just signed off on it. So it goes.

After the cover page, the figures are shown as here on the left. Everything the Applicants want legal protection for must be shown and identified with a number in the figures. My brother engineers out there will recognize the style of drawing from their orthographic drawing classes in college.

After the drawings comes the body of the patent, called the specification, which described the invention in such a way as it allows the reader to make and use the invention. That's the quid pro quo aspect of the patent system. You as the inventor have to tell the Patent Office (and by extension, everyone else) how to make your invention, how to use your invention, and what it's good for. In exchange, the Patent Office gives you exclusive rights to that invention for a period no longer than 20 years. Using your disclosure, other inventors can work off your invention to further the state of the art. The term "art" is common and comes from the US Constitution which requires the creation of the Patent Office in Article 1, Section 8. Only the Patent Office and the Postal Service are explicitly created by the Constitution. Things people have done before are called "prior art."

At the end of the specification come the claims, marked by the arrow to the right. As mentioned above the claims determine what the patent holder actually gets legal protection for. They are written in extreme legalese. For example, the first claim of this patent reads:

"Claim 1: A military tank comprising: a chassis having a front half and a rear half having an upper surface; a turret; means mounting the turret for rotation on the upper surface of the rear half of the chassis; a heavy weapon; means mounting the weapon for pivotable movement on the turret" bla bla bla bla....

Think of it as the net that's being cast by the inventor. Any object which fits the description of the claims can only be made, sold, or used by the patent holder. What "fits the description" is up to a great deal of interpretation, which is why people sue each other. And that's basically it as far as the basic nuts-and-bolts of reading a patent. More to come.

So I do need to put down some CYA legal-type stuff too. I'll put it at the bottom to not scare anyone off. First, I am a patent examiner. That means ethically that I can't give any specific advice about applying for a patent other than say that you should retain the services of an attorney registered to practice before the US Patent Office. You can find a list here. I can talk about the application process in a broad sense, however. Second, so it's it writing, I'm not making any money off this blog, nor am I using my work computer to write it. While I do, of course, come across most of the patents I plan on writing about while at work, for the purposes of this blog all the patents are accessed via Google Patents. Third, while I can't really talk about the specifics of cases that I'm currently working on, patents issued off applications I've examined on are open to the public.