PATENTS
I HAVE SOUGHT,
AND FAILED,
TO OBTAIN.
- - - -
Re: Patent Application for Burden of Proof
Dear Mr. Feezell:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office regrets to inform you that your patent request for "burden of proof" will not be granted at this time. Our guidelines state that "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter." Your request, unfortunately, falls under the latter of the aforementioned categories, and therefore cannot be considered.
Regarding your appeal: While it indeed may be arguable that our office "can't prove [you] didn't totally come up with that 'burden of proof' thingy on [your] own," we are not bound by the same legal statutes that prosecutors in a United States court of law are bound by, and therefore needn't offer any evidence disputing your claim.
Furthermore, we find it reproachable that, as noted in your appeal, your motive for initially applying for the patent in question was "to sue to pants off those Law & Order fuckers." Please do not submit this sort of patent application ever again.
Thank you,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
- - - -
Re: Patent Application for My Killer Abs
Dear Mr. Feezell:
We have received your request to patent "[your] killer abs." However, we will not be able to process your request at this time, as our offices cannot consider patent applications concerning human body parts. We offer Herman J. Melford's 1987 patent application for "my stunning cheekbones," the first of its kind—and summarily rejected—as precedent on the matter.
It should be noted that we often receive patent applications for body parts by mistake, wherein applicants confuse our services with those of certain insurance companies that offer coverage for highly coveted physical features. If you are interested in pursuing this avenue, we would be happy to put you in contact with one of these companies. Also, we suggest that if you do, changing the title of your article to "My Slightly-Above-Mediocre Abs" might more accurately reflect the items in question.
Kindly,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
- - - -
Re: Patent Application for Egg Whisk
Dear Mr. Feezell:
Thank you for your interest in patenting your egg-beating device, referred to hereafter as "egg whisk," as stated in your application. While the item does meet our guidelines for patentable material, and indeed seems quite a useful tool, we regret to notify you that another item called "egg whisk" was invented and patented decades ago by an industrious British chef named Reginald von Cleef. Therefore, we cannot consider your "egg whisk" for patenting at this time.
We would also like to note that your "egg whisk" is simply a plastic fork with the words "egg whisk" written on the handle in black marker, and to pre-emptively inform you that, should you wish to attempt to stake inventive claim to "plastic fork," a patent for said item has also already been issued. Many years ago.
Regards,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
- - - -
Re: Patent Application for Strips of Rubber
Dear Mr. Feezell:
Once again, thank you for submitting your application. "Strips of rubber," as you are aware from our last letter, remain a heretofore unpatented item. As you will also recall, the USPTO, in response to your initial request, demanded in writing arguable proof of the utility of the item in question. We quote directly from your submission:
- "Hang decoratively from ceiling for a sort of 'Black Rain' effect at rave parties (if that's your thing)"
- "Pin multiple strips to basedball [sic] cap and be all to your friends, 'Hey, mon! Look at me, mon! Rasta mon!"
- "Create your own Bowflex"
- "Generally have one hell of a time stretching the stuff in a playful sort of way"
The office does not feel at this time that sufficient evidence of the item's utility has been provided, and hereby officially rejects your application forthright. We also reject your more recent patent application for "rubbery strips," which we feel are equally useless. Please do not resubmit them for consideration under any other name.
Thank you,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
- - - -
Re: Patent Application for the Word "Flagelajadingdong-nog-syrupification"
Dear Mr. Feezell:
Although the USPTO first rejected your request to patent this "hella funny-sounding word"—to use your exact expression—on the grounds that it was not only an inutile and abstract idea but, frankly, a wholly absurd one, we were subsequently forced to retract this rejection and issue a new one because "flagelajadingdong-nog-syrupification" has, in fact, already been patented (as a process) by one Mr. Daniel Feezell of Santa Barbara, California. Mr. Daniel Feezell's patent defines the process as follows:
The act of patenting the word "flagelajadingdong-nog-syrupification" before one's younger brother does, thereby stymieing his lifelong dream of obtaining a patent.
Regrettably, we must honor those patents already in effect, however ridiculous in nature. Please consider this a final rejection notice and do not appeal our decision. Once again, we are sorry for the bad news, and that you were flagelajadingdong-nog-syrupificated by the other, apparently cleverer Mr. Feezell.
Yours,
United States Patent and Trademark Office
- - - -
OTHER McSWEENEY'S FEATURES:
- - - -
Patents I Have Sought, and Failed, to Obtain By Eric Feezell
Steroids Are Ruining the Comics Page By Jim Stallard
Tom Wolfe Reviews Entourage By Blair Becker
Introducing Millard Kaufman
As Your Manager, I Think It's Time to Rethink Some of the Advice I Gave You, Starlet By Aaron Spiewak
Red dot denotes content that is new today.
Black dot denotes newish content.