|
|
|
|
|
by buro9
4865 days ago
|
|
> the patent application describes the device's battery being charged by ambient light and kinetic energy. That's pretty wild. Fairly common, automatic mechanical watches already use kinetic, but were we to say "But those aren't electronic" then you could always look at something like the Seiko Premier ( http://www.seiko.co.uk/products/seiko/c/premier/m/snp005p1_s... ) And for ambient light charging, you have Citizen and their Eco-Drive range ( http://www.citizenwatch.com/en-us/watches/collections/citize... ) and Casio's G-shock ( http://www.gshock.com/technology/solar/ ) I enjoy the fact that my current watch is ambient light powered, syncs with atomic clocks each night via radio... and therefore never needs a battery or charging, and is so damn accurate that I can glance at my watch when some event happens on my NTP sync'd server and the entry in the log file is precisely when the time on my watch said it would be. Anyhow... those power sources should be irrelevant to the patent... they've existed for years by numerous players in the watch market. |
|
This is my biggest complaint whenever there's a patent discussion on HN (or anywhere else) by laypersons. The power sources are highly relevant to the patent; Every single claim in the patent is important. Otherwise, someone back at the beginning of patent-time could have simply patented "thing which you wrap around your wrist" and owned the patent to watches, bracelets, and handcuffs. As well, there could exist pre-existing patents for a straight stick, a piece of string, and a hook; But putting them all together to make a fishing rod would be an innovation that you could patent.