[JumpCrisscross]

> the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart?

Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)

[IshKebab]

If you look at the claims they actually patented this (I translated it into English):

> For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner.

I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement.

The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad.

So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"

[Sohcahtoa82]

> We patented using stackable trays!

I'd just start gesturing wildly at cafeteria trays that have been around for decades.

[IshKebab]

Yeah but did you put them on a cart? No!! N.. oh you did. Ok fine but did you put them on a cart near an X-ray machine? Ha!

[patentatt]

I’m usually one to defend patents on the grounds that the claims are far more narrow than the general idea being criticized in internet comments… that being said, claim 1 is, on its face, very broad. Like super broad. I’d be curious to check out the prosecution history and the spec on this to see if there’s anything limiting in there. Because in plain language, claim 1 is … broad.