ECE 477 Digital Systems Senior Design Project Spring 2006
Homework 9: Patent Liability Analysis
Due: Friday, March 31, at NOON
Team Code Name: 2-Bit Robit Group No. 2
Team Member Completing This Homework: Andy Brezinsky
E-mail Address of Report Author:
Evaluation:
Component/Criterion / Score / Multiplier / PointsIntroduction and Summary
/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / X 1Results of Patent/Product Search / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / X 4
Analysis of Patent Liability / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / X 2
Action Recommended / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / X 1
List of References / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / X 1
Technical Writing Style / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 / X 1
TOTAL
Comments:
______
______
______
______
1.0 Introduction
The 2-bit Robit is a robotic dot-matrix printing robot. It transverses a grid and at the appropriate time, sprays one of 4 cans of chalk on the ground to create an image. To do this, it uses wireless Ethernet, servo motor control, IR/Sonar distance finding as well as the generic functionality of printing an image. Due to the uniqueness of the device however, we believe that we are not infringing on any significant patents related to the overall operation of the device. The infringement, if it exists, will be in the subsystems used to accomplish the overall task.
Infringement on a patent can come in one of two forms; literal infringement and infringement on the doctrine of equivalents.[1] Literal infringement occurs when a device performs a function the exact same way as a patented device. These types of infringements are typically easy to spot and are easy to prove infringement on. An infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents occurs when a device performs the same function in substantially the same way.
In the following analysis, three patents will be described and compared to our project.
2.0 Results of Patent and Product Search
A patent search with the US Patent and Trademark Office was conducted using search terms and concepts use in our project. As a result, we were not able to find any patents of any similarity to the overall project. This required a modification to search parameters to focus more upon subsystems than the design itself. Search terms related to the positioning system, the spraying system, the file uploading via web browser, the positioning algorithm to process the position data, etc were all used and a number of results turned up.
Patent 6,702,415 “Ink-jet printing method and apparatus” [2] filed on June 5, 2002, describes a method for discharging ink for each pixel onto a printing medium while scanning an ink-jet across the medium. In addition it describes the use of a computer to control the printing process (claim 4) as well as the storage of a printable file to describe the contents to print (claim 5).
Patent 5,709,321 “Apparatus for remotely discharging the contents of an aerosol container”[3] filed February 22, 1996 describes an electromechanical solenoid used to remotely discharge an inverted aerosol spray can. It also covers the holding of the inverted can and mounting of the can on a vehicle. The claims stated in this patent indicate its intended usage relate to the remote spraying of an aerosol can from an operator while the can is mounted to a vehicle and in motion.
Patent 6,850,024 “Navigation method and system for autonomous machines with markers defining the working area” filed May 16, 2002 [4] is a robot which uses fixed position markings to navigate an area. The position markers consist of a boundary placed around the perimeter of the area where the robot is to work. Upon startup the robot moves around the entire working area and memorizes the positions of the boundaries. Then, from a fixed starting position, it moves around the work area, comparing its internal memory map of the area with its on board sensors and corrects for any discrepancies.
3.0 Analysis of Patent Liability
Patent 6,702,415 [2] describes a method for printing ink on a medium. In a way, we are “printing” our spray paint (ink) on the ground (medium). There is a significant difference in the operation of our device and the patent description related to the advance of the print head in the y-direction. As described in the patent, the print head travels across the medium in the x- direction. Upon completion of the line, it returns to the “home position” and the medium is advanced underneath the head. Because our medium is not movable, instead moving the print head in the y-direction, and we do not return to home after every x-pass, the robot should not infringe on this patent literally. However since the basic operation of depositing ink on a medium is identical, it could be argued that we are infringing under the doctrine of equivalents. Numerous commercial products exist which perform this printing function in a similar way to what is laid out in the claims above. This technology can be found in most ink-jet printers.
We are literally infringing on patent 5,709,321 [3] with the robot device. Since we need to spray the cans under control of the microprocessor, we are required to use a solenoid device. Under examination of the diagrams, the proposed method of spraying is identical to what is being designed for the use of our project. Furthermore, the claim for mounting the cans on a vehicle is a fundamental requirement of our design and thus results in infringement.
Patent 6,850,024 [4] describes a system for using correction data to correct a vehicle's position based an internal memory map of the area. The Robit's design uses correction data from a positioning beacon to correct its location according to the internal spray memory image. Despite the large differences in how this is accomplished and the overall usage, the possibility of an infringement of claim 1 based on the doctrine of equivalents could be argued.
4.0 Action Recommended
While the first and third patents described above are close to describing operation of the device created, only patent the first patent generates enough concern to warrant a deeper investigation into infringement. Since the patent is quite general describing the ink-jet system, the movement across the page and due to the fact that it can be compared to writing on a piece of paper with a pen (an ink-jet like device), the defense of patenting a trivial operation could be used to defeat the patent.
The third patent discussed above is a direct infringement and must be licensed for the project to continue. Without developing a new method of controlling the cans using a technology other than solenoids or another type of electromechanical device, there is no way of firing the cans and the basic functionality of the robot is non-existent. The cheapest and easiest method of resolving this infringement is licensing.
5.0 Summary
What initially was seen as an easy and original project was later found to be patent limited on a vital subsystem and possibly infringing upon additional patents related to the concept of spraying ink on a medium and correcting location based upon an internal memory image and distance data.
List of References
[1] D.G Meyer, “Module 10: Patent Infringement Liability,” 2006 [Online]. Available: http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~dsml/ece477/Notes/PDF/4-Mod10.pdf
[2] H. Kanda and Y. Nakagawa, “Ink-jet printing method and apparatus,” U.S. Patent 6,702,415, March 9, 2004. Available: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6702415.WKU.&OS=PN/6702415&RS=PN/6702415
[3] T. Smrt, “Apparatus for remotely discharging the contents of an aerosol container,” U.S. Patent 5,709,321, January 20, 1998. Available: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=/netahtml/search-adv.htm&r=5&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&p=1&p=1&S1=3,485,206&OS=3,485,206&RS=3,485,206
[4] K. Tanaka, “Navigation method and system for autonomous machines with markers defining the working area,” U.S. Patent 6,850,024, February 15, 2005. Available: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=6,856,630&OS=6,856,630&RS=6,856,630
-6-