15

Having read through the claims of Magsafe patent #7311526, I am not sure how it differs from previous examples of magnetic power connectors. What exactly is the novelty being claimed in that particular patent?

Certain deep fryers have had a magnetic connector for years in Japan and there was a project with Underwriters Laboratory to bring them to the US in the early 2000s:

http://www.dowell.com.hk/breakawaycord_news.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/

|improve this question
11

As John Daniel has commented, they reference those very examples of prior art you cite. Even though there is prior art it doesn't invalidate the patent because Apple have substantially improved on it. The novel parts are:

  • A symmetrical connector that can can be coupled in two or more orientations (claims 1-33)
  • The magnets within a connector are arranged in opposing polarities for improved coupling strength (claims 34-57)
  • The connector is decoupled without being damaged when driven by a non-axial (e.g., perpendicular) force. (claims 46, 51-54)
|improve this answer
  • 1
    I substantial improvement all that is required to get a patent? What is the line between improvement and non-obviousness? – Thucydides411 Dec 8 '12 at 1:09
  • 1
    A novel, useful and non-obvious improvement can be patented. "Substantial" is not a requirement for patentability of improvements. – George White Feb 16 '13 at 6:52

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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