Comments on: Patently arrogant

By: David S

David S — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:46:08 +0000

They’ve now got a patent issued for the process: 7,325,317. They’re claiming that, prior to their invention, clothing patterns weren’t actually adjusted for cup size. They present an algorithm to make the adjustments, but I’m not qualified to judge whether it works or not. (It looks a whole lot like instructions I’ve seen in pattern books predating their claim of invention, with added algebra. ) I very much suspect it’s not an actually enforceable patent, but one granted because the patent office gives patents to nearly anyone that can write an application the examiner doesn’t understand. The purpose of these patents is usually to say “Look, we’ve got a patent!” to potential investors, and to write threatening letters to scare people who are infringing the invalid patent. Some substantial fraction of the people who receive a threatening letter will pay up, even if the threats are groundless. It’s of course possible that they think they invented this (or, at least, the lookup table the patent covers).

By: Jenna

Jenna — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 23:05:40 +0000

Hello Kathleen,
I had a comment to post on your November 10, 2005 entry called “Patently arrogant” (yes, quite a blast from the past):

The patent application in question was just published a couple of weeks ago: the publication number is 20060277773, and the two designers named on the Rebecca and Drew site are listed as two of the co-inventors, so you can search for the published application using the “search for…” hyperlink in the body of the post.

Its status is also publicly available now. An examiner has been assigned to the case, but the application has not actually been examined yet, so it’s quite possible that the claims that issue will be different from what was published.

By: Brucie

Brucie — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 03:34:21 +0000

It may be that you cannot find the patent application for Rebecca and Drew, because patent applications are made available 18 months after the date of filing. It is likely that the Rebecca and Drew patent was filed less than 18 months ago.

By: Meggeicat

Meggeicat — Wed, 16 Nov 2005 17:45:52 +0000

Kathleen,

I also searched for a patent and if they have actually submitted an application it is not available under either of their names. They may only have gotten as far as a patent attorney.

You know how much I enjoy browsing the patent office (remember.. kewpie dolls) and I’ve seen basic origami and paper dodecohedrons receive design patents.

I search from this page:
http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/selectnumwithtitle.htm
The design patent classes are at the bottom of the page. The design patents seem to require much less information than a process patent.

For instance here is an Oleg Cassini patent that I snagged for the Frankie Files.
http://img22.exs.cx/img22/8452/olegcassini19540ee.gif
For specifications he says that he invented an ornamental design for a dress and his claim is just as short. He did not have to submit the pattern for the dress.

Are they trying for a process patent or a blouse design patent? Their notice doesn’t say. Don’t most patent pending notices carry the patent number? I don’t know. I just browse the patents out of curiosity.

Best,
Kathy

By: jeanette

jeanette — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 14:13:32 +0000

Well… I was going to mention Silhoutte Patterns has been marketing patterns by bra size for years but Peggy Sayers beat me to it! They are nice patterns and fit well.

By: Dani

Dani — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:40:37 +0000

Has anyone noticed variations in bra sizes? For example, I’ve worn a size 34 B in Playtex brands for over 20 years. I’m in Victoria’s Secret the other day, trying them on, and I find that I wear a 34 D in all of their styles! As flattering as that may have been to me, I know that time & gravity certainly have not been that kind, and I haven’t gained more than 5 pounds over the last 10 years either. I guess I assumed that bra sizing was more standardized than regular clothing. (see Kathleen’s 6 part series on “Alternatives in women’s sizing” beginning in May 2005) If this variation in sizing is present in bras, how would one know what they were getting when ordering a blouse based on bra sizing?

By: christy fisher

christy fisher — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 02:03:13 +0000

Total lurker:
I landed on Silouhette patterns awhile back too.. they have their own site:
http://www.silhouettepatterns.com
Here’s their blurb.. you are right on!
blurb:
Everywhere I traveled, women would tell me over an over again, “None of the patterns fit me like they should and the instructions are always so outdated.”

For the past seven years I’ve been working on a line of patterns that actually fit well and need only minor length adjustments. Silhouettes are different from other patterns in a number of ways: Accurate lengths that are based on your height, No-Gap armholes or necklines, “W” sizing for the proportional fit, and patterns that are based on your cup size!

Just browse this site to learn more!

Sincerely,
Peggy Sagers

By: Christy Fisher

Christy Fisher — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:00:45 +0000

Mike: I read “I’ve worked on several patents in my career (non-apparel related) and they are enormously complex beasts.”..and at first I read “breast” instead of “beast”..and it totally derailed my train..

By: total lurker, yo

total lurker, yo — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 16:45:32 +0000

Well, Simplicity has had a couple of h/s patterns for jackets that are sized by cup. (4698 springs to mind.)

http://www.thesewingplace.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=236&Page=2

“Sillouttes is the first to offer A, B, C, and D cup sizing, blah, blah, blah”.

By: jinjer

jinjer — Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:50:55 +0000

Mike,

good point about the math that may underlt the “pending” patent (although the same type of reasoning birthed biotech patents, which are bad, bad, bad). If they invented some kind of radial darfting method, for example, that might be cool.

Not that I beleive that at all. While I thing some of the top ideas are kinda cute, the tops themsleves are all princess-seamed, and unflatteringly pointy.