{27} High Fives in Order for Patenting High Five Appartus

To finish off a great semester of Mobile Patents, we discussed some absurdly ridiculous methods and apparatuses (i.e. centrifugal apparatus to induce labor) that were granted patents. For a patent to be considered valid it is judged on three main concepts of: useful, novel, and non-obvious. I have defined them at the end of this post. 

In 1993, Patent No: 5,356,330 "Apparatus for simulating a 'high-five' was granted Albert Cohen of New York. "An apparatus for simulating a 'high-five' including a lower arm portion having a simulated hand removably attached thereto, an upper arm portion, an elbow joint for pivotally securing the lower arm portion to the upper arm portion, and a spring biasing element for biasing the upper and lower arm portions towards a predetermined alignment. I would recommend everyone read the first claim as it gives a detailed technical method as to the functionality of this apparatus.  

On the basis of usefulness: As defined by Wikipedia, a high five is a celebratory hand gesture. Though Wikipedia must be corrected as it is no longer a hand gesture that occurs between two people since 1993, we can agree that a high-five is a way to signify a successful positive feeling. When we don't have someone near us to high-five, this apparatus proves to be a very useful substitute to release one's inner celebratory feelings. It is a solution to a rare problem, but a problem nonetheless. This is also a novel idea as this device is the first of its kind, while a few may have wished for a faux hand to high five with, none of these ideas were turned into a working appartus before Mr. Cohen patented the idea. On the basis of non-obviousness, I would argue that this is definitely a very technically adept solution to the high-five problem that is not a obvious solution. Therefore, overall this patent was rightfully granted as it is completely valid. Whether, Mr. Cohen was able to recover the hefty USPTO fees through sales, is another question all together.  

DEFINITIONS                                                                                                                                          

Usefulness:  The subject matter must have a useful purpose. If there is no need for it by the public, there is no reason for the device as it does not solve or provide a solution towards any problem. "It also requires that the item is operable, since a machine that can not perform its intended purpose cannot be considered useful in the ordinary sense of the word". 

Novelty:  As stated by USPTO, an invention cannot be patented it: 

1. The invention is in use or actively familiar within the United States prior to patent filling. 
2. Prior art exists as described in a patent, print publication, or other previous records proving the invention was in use prior to filling. 
3. The invention was patented or used in a printed publication in any country more than a year prior to the inventor's filling in the US. 
4. The invention was in public use or sold in the US more than a year prior to the filling. 

** This does not include improvements upon existing patents and inventions. For example, if an inventor found a way to make tire rubbers last twice as long with a slight altercation of the existing formula, this would be patentable as the difference was not previously obvious. 

Non-obviousness: A person of ordinary skill in the area of a related technology field should not find the solution or invention obvious.