I can't believe this patent granted in 2002-- I would think that if somebody was going to think of something like this, it would have been earlier! I also agree that the patent meets the criteria of novelty and nonobviousness. Yes, it could be useful for a child with disabilities, but perhaps there is a social stigma attached to it for healthy children that can walk themselves. And you did bring up a good point-- the wheelchair (prior art) is a much better alternative since it is easier on the parents. Sometimes, I feel with silly patents, devices are just patented for the sake of having their own patent. I think finding something that is socially acceptable is the key to implementing it in the future.
I can't believe this patent granted in 2002-- I would think that if somebody was going to think of something like this, it would have been earlier! I also agree that the patent meets the criteria of novelty and nonobviousness. Yes, it could be useful for a child with disabilities, but perhaps there is a social stigma attached to it for healthy children that can walk themselves. And you did bring up a good point-- the wheelchair (prior art) is a much better alternative since it is easier on the parents. Sometimes, I feel with silly patents, devices are just patented for the sake of having their own patent. I think finding something that is socially acceptable is the key to implementing it in the future.
ReplyDelete