Technology & Innovation 13(3) Abstracts

Return to Technology & Innovation main page>

Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp.203 –211, 2011
1929-8241/10 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982411X13189742259271
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2011 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

ROBERT L. ALLDREDGE, CHEMICAL ENGINEER, INVENTOR, ENTREPRENEUR

Dean F. Martin and Barbara B. Martin

Institute for Environmental Studies, Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

One approach to understanding innovation is to know more about innovators, and the biography of Robert L. Alldredge, P.E. (1922–2008) is considered for this reason. He was the founder of three successful businesses and held about 60 US and foreign patents. One patent of particular interest was Octolig®, a chelating agent covalently attached to a high surface silica gel. Octolig® was the result of a collaboration between an American entrepreneur (Robert Alldredge) and an Australian professor (Leonard Francis Lindoy). It was designed to remove nuisance transition metal ions from water solutions effectively and economically.

Key words: Octolig®; Transition metal ions; Remediation; Innovation

Address correspondence to Dean F. Martin, Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry—CHE 205, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. Tel: 813-974-2374; Fax: 813-974-3203; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 213–224, 2011
1929-8241/10 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982411X13189742259316
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2011 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

DANCE AND ENGINEERING LINK TO PRODUCE A NOVEL MOBILITY DEVICE

Merry Lynn Morris,* Kathryn J. De Laurentis,† Stephanie Carey,† Stephen Sundarrao,† Rajiv Dubey,† Jason Highsmith,‡ Larry Mengelkoch,‡ and M. Elisa McQueen§

*School of Theater & Dance, College of the Arts, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
†Department of Mechanical Engineering/Center for Assistive Rehabilitation & Robotics Technologies, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
‡School of Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
§College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

This article describes a unique design collaboration between the College of the Arts, School of Theatre and Dance and the Center for Assistive, Rehabilitation & Robotics Technologies in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of South Florida, which has resulted in a patented, hands-free mobility chair for use in multiple populations aimed at improving quality of life. An interdisciplinary team redesigned a powered mobility (wheel) chair to enable individuals to operate it hands-free. This type of controller allows the chair to become an extension of the body, and create new movement and choreographic possibilities useful in the expressive arts such as dance. The patented prototype design enables individuals to control direction and speed of movement by leaning the torso, leaving the upper extremities free to move expressively. This offers a unique mobility option. Additional movement features in progress, such as height control, and seat rotation also add to the versatility and utility of the device to serve a variety of purposes. This article addresses technological design through the artistic lens of dance, summarizes the innovation process and context, and highlights the educational impact and interdisciplinary research progress thus far.

Key words: Assistive; Mobility; Mixed ability dance; Wheelchair design; Rolling dance chair project

Address correspondence to Merry Lynn Morris, P.O. Box 27086, Tampa, FL 33623-7086, USA. Tel: 813-541-3618; Fax: 813-974-4165; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 225–231, 2011
1929-8241/10 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982411X13189742259352
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2011 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

COLLABORATIVE DECISION MAKING BETWEEN COCKPIT AND DISPATCH FOR SAFETY

Ronald John Lofaro* and Kevin M. Smith†

*Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Worldwide, Pensacola, FL, USA
†Mesquite, NV, USA

This article explores a systematic approach for flightcrew (cockpit) and ground (dispatch) integration in risk identification and management. The approach is based on operational decision making (ODM), a published methodology. Presented is a way to distribute command authority between the captain and dispatch before and during a flight via up-linked ODM and automation. This will result in identifying, managing, and thereby reducing risk to the aircraft, and all onboard. The stress is on risk and what that means both to the planning and execution of the mission. The focus is on coordination and collaboration in the decision-making processes in the airline operational environment.

Key words: Operational decision making; Risk identification; Risk management; Cockpit automation

Address correspondence to Ronald John Lofaro, 3200 Loop Road, Unit 70, Orange Beach, AL 36561, USA. Tel: (251) 980-1175;

E-mail: lofaro@msn.c


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 233–238, 2011
1929-8241/10 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982411X13189742259398
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2011 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

THE RACE FOR CHEAP ALUMINUM: HALL VERSUS HÉROULT

Dean F. Martin

Institute for Environmental Studies, Department of Chemistry, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

The factors that determine priority in inventions are illustrated in the development of a commercially acceptable process for preparation of aluminum in 1886 when it was achieved by two young (age 22) men (Hall and Héroult). At least three factors were involved in the parallel achievement. The specific success of Charles Martin Hall in obtaining the US patent was a consequence of a couple of factors. One was likely the assistance of his elder sister; the other was the rule of the United States Patent and Trademark Office concerning priority, viz., first to “reduce to practice” versus the standard in France and other nations, first to submit an acceptable patent application. The Patent and Trademark Office will change rules soon to conform to the practice of other nations.

Key words: Aluminum; Charles Martin Hall; P. L. T. Héroult; Cryolite

Address correspondence to Dean F. Martin, Distinguished University Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry-CHE 205, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. Tel: 813-974-2374; Fax: 813-974-3203; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 241–248, 2011
1929-8241/10 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982411X13189742259479
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2011 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

THE ROLE OF PATENTS AND COMMERCIALIZATION IN THE TENURE AND PROMOTION PROCESS

Ashley J. Stevens,* Ginger A. Johnson,† and Paul R. Sanberg‡§

*Association of University Technology Managers, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
†Office of Research & Innovation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
‡Office of Research & Innovation, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
§National Academy of Inventors, Tampa, FL, USA

Texas A&M created quite a stir in May 2006 when it added commercialization considerations as a sixth factor to be taken into account when faculty are evaluated for tenure. Somewhat surprisingly, their lead has not been followed, at least publicly, by other major institutions. At a recent meeting of academic associations, it emerged in conversation that a number of institutions of higher learning have moved in this direction, but without the publicity of Texas A&M. Therefore, we conducted a sampling survey to determine: 1) if other North American universities evaluate commercialization considerations when deciding faculty tenure and, if so, 2) what were the defining characteristics of these institutions. Study findings revealed that 16 universities in the US and Canada consider patents and commercialization in tenure and promotion decisions. The majority of these institutions have research budgets under $200 million, have adopted changes to the tenure process within the last 6 years, and consider “US patents issued” a commercialization consideration priority. Surprisingly, study findings also found that a significant number of universities do not publish their tenure criteria. The application of similar studies to a wider range of North American educational institutions is encouraged to see how the trend started by these 16 universities may continue.

Key words: Patents; Commercialization; Tenure; Promotion; Early adopters

Address correspondence to Ashley J. Stevens. D.Phil. (Oxon), CLP, Immediate Past President, Association of University Technology Managers, Special Assistant to the Vice President for Research and Senior Research Associate, ITEC, School of Management, Boston University, 53 Bay State Road, Boston, MA 02215, USA. Tel: (617) 353-6303; Fax: (617) 353-6141; E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


Technology and Innovation, Vol. 13, pp. 249–259, 2011
1929-8241/10 $90.00 + .00
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3727/194982411X13189742259514
E-ISSN 1949-825X
Copyright © 2011 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE USPTO POLICIES TOWARD SMALL ENTITY PATENT APPLICATIONS

G. Harley Blosser,* Nasser Arshadi,† and Sanjay Agrawal‡

*Blosser Law Firm, St. Louis, MO, USA
†Office of Research Administration, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
‡Office of Technology Transfer, University of Missouri-St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is the regulatory agency empowered by the US government to issue patents for novel inventions. Patents in turn provide inventors a limited monopolistic window during which exclusive rights to the underlying technology enhance the likelihood of successful commercialization. Policies governing the patent process have evolved over two centuries and are often credited for creating an environment conducive to inventor productivity. For example, the number of patents issued per person in the US today is four times greater than those issued in Europe. The ability for small entities to receive patents makes it easier for inventions conceived in a garage or university lab to become commercially viable. With all its success, the USPTO now faces various challenges including a sizable backlog of unexamined patent applications. Attempts to address these challenges have been ongoing, and, since 2005, Congress has been working to remedy issues with the US patent system. This effort for patent reform has recently promulgated in the America Invents Act. This article examines both current policies that potentially affect small entities differently than large entities and aspects of the reform act that could be detrimental to small entities. Because regulatory reform cannot address all the obstacles faced by small entities, we discuss a promising new technology that may mitigate certain competitive disadvantages faced by small entities today—3D printers.

Key words: United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); America Invents Act; Small and large entity inventors; Independent inventors; First-to-invent; First-to-file; Unity of invention; New matter developed postfiling; Three-tier tracking; Postissuance; Stanford v. Roche; 3D printers