Well, see, the trays used to be different sizes so you couldn't stack them, so without this patent the TSA wouldn't have thought to do that /s
> A disadvantage to the present system used in security areas is that the trays for holding laptop computers are not part of a uniform system and do not protect the items from possible damage. Therefore, it is possible that multiple size trays that do not in any way correspond with one another may be used at a security area thus making storage of the trays when they are not in use cumbersome.
Well, they could have asked anyone who ever had worked in a ware house for tips.
Probably some people working on there had ideas like that, too.
I mean it's such a common thing that there are EU standardized sizes for stack-able boxes (and as far as I can tell they existed since pre-EU, or at least I can't remember my dad not using them in his little shops storage room).
The sizes are so common that even car manufacturers consider them when designing (some kinds of) cars.
As to "how is it patentable," I think lots of other responses are probably right as to the current state of the law, but to me the more interesting question is the policy one: "why should it be patentable." Like, to the extent that patents are a deliberately market-distorting mechanism that's meant to incentivize invention, do they actually work as intended here? Like, does anyone seriously believe that if patents didn't protect this idea, nobody would have "invented" the idea of putting trays on a cart anyway? And assuming they would have, what's the social/public utility of having a patent system with a bar as low as ours, if it doesn't actually incentivize anything at least in the case of these most-seemingly-stupid patents?
Patent law is hard and generalising it is very difficult. It all depends on the nature of the claims.
What can be said, generally, is that patentability isn't assessed with the benefit of hindsight, and a combination of well-known methods may, in some circumstances, be patentable.
Yeah as ridiculous as this patent is, the context is important here. The TSA tested this method, then refused to license it and continued to use it. In another world where the TSA had no idea about this guy and just came up with this method on their own, this would be a very different case.
This is more of a case of "knowingly infringing on a patent" rather than "infringing on a patent"
Really motivates you to point the obvious ideas out to as many people/companies as you can find before they can think of said obvious ideas themselves (if you somehow have one of these “no brainer” patents)
> It was the final step in the method of claim one – “moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device” – that was added at the PTO to overcome the examiner’s initial obviousness concern.
So the lynchpin of the case earning this company $100m is the idea of moving trays on a cart from the exit to the entrance.
I mean it doesn't seem to pass the necessary burden of ingenuity as it's IMHO/as far as I can tell just a trivial combination of long known methods.