Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This patent US6370535 broadly describes any news release with a headline and content. It's childishly simple and has absolutely no value. It simply documents the extraordinarily broad and intuitive process of creating a news release. Why is this a patent? Why would the USPTO give someone a patent on a generic process? I'm not a lawyer, but this appears to put any individual or company creating a news release with a headline in a position of infringing on a patent. I'm baffled. Please make sense of this.

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The broadest claims do look really broad to me:

  1. A method for structured generation of a news release, the method comprising:

    a. separately specifying content of each of a plurality of pre-determined sections of the news release, the predetermined sections and their ordering determining in part a desired format for the news release;

    b. storing, in a digital storage medium, the content specified for each of the sections; and

    c. assembling the news release by retrieving from the storage medium each of the stored sections in a manner consistent with the desired format.

But It does has more substance than just any news release. It is a method for producing news releases in a predetermined format based on pulling the ingredients together from multiple databases. The fleshed out idea behind it is a menu driven Q and A with explanations and hints to help one produce a press release with a particular set of facts and points. Not earth-shattering, but probably new and non-obvious at the time. The examiner looked at nine other, earlier patents in the field and a similar number of magazine articles and found this doing something none of those did. Later claims, like 13 have more meat.

Still, claim 1 is really broad on its face and might have a harder time standing up than many of the dependent claims. (I assume it was granted at a time when the patentability pendulum had swung far to one side.)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.