#27: Silly Patent Beerbrella

In order for the USPTO to grant a patent claim it must be deemed “useful,” “novel,” and “non-obvious.” In class this week we discussed how many patents that have been filed in the past were theoretically determined as valid by these three legal terms but were pretty ridiculous in reality.

I found a long list of ridiculous patents at this site: www.freepatentsonline.com/6637447.html
 

Yup, you guessed it! Mason Schott Mcmullin from St. Louis, MO along with Robert Bell and Mark See filed a patent on 10/19/2001 for their invention called “Beerbrella” which is a small umbrella that can be attached to a beverage container in order to shade the beverage container from direct sun rays.

"The apparatus comprises a small umbrella approximately five to seven inches in diameter, although other appropriate sizes may be used within the spirit and scope of the present invention. Suitable advertising and/or logos may be applied to the umbrella surface for promotional purposes. The umbrella may be attached to the beverage container by any one of a number of means, including clip, strap, cup, foam insulator, or as a coaster or the like. The umbrella shaft may be provided with a pivot to allow the umbrella to be suitably angled to shield the sun or for aesthetic purposes. In one embodiment, a pivot joint and counterweight may be provided to allow the umbrella to pivot out of the way when the user drinks from the container."



As funny as this patent is it was deemed to be legally valid because of the following legal rational.

1. Useful: Although I find this completely useless and I would never want something like this because there are many other methods that I would consider much more effective in keeping a beverage cold it does work and it can be used. The USPTO definitely ruled it as a useful item and I guess it is something you might use at a tacky pool party.
 
2. Non-obvious – meaning anyone else with the same skills in this area could not have come up with the same idea. I am a bit on the fence on this one because I do not think this idea is very ingenious. However, the USPTO did deem the patent to be non-obvious.

3. Novelty: Is the idea new? Well lets think about it…

a. Prior Art – This patent would not be valid if it had been written down or drawn out by someone before. Perhaps the idea had been discussed previously however there is no valid "prior art" that would have invalidated this patent. It is a patent that no one else actually claimed or previously filed for and is therefore it is new. 
b. Valid – It is valid because it has been determined to be useful, non-obvious, and new.
c. Common Sense – it is not common sense, although the invention does not make much sense. There are many other more efficient ways to keep a beverage cold.
d. Enablement – “Any analysis of whether a particular claim is supported by the disclosure in an application requires a determination of whether that disclosure, when filed, contained sufficient information regarding the subject matter of the claims as to enable one skilled in the pertinent art to make and use the claimed invention” (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2164.html). To this I say yes the enablement requirement has been satisfied there is enough information about what the product is made out of and how to use it to be build and used effectively.  
e. Obviousness- it is determined to be non obvious, meaning others with the same background would not have easily come up with this idea.

So, here we see a theoretically valid patent that the USPTO granted in 2003 that is pretty silly. However, it is valid and I am sure that many people found ways to use this random invention.