Patent Restrictions?

[dougAEGPF]

Carl re your comments in post#68
Correct me please if i am wrong but didn't Eric in another thread allude to the same conclusion?
dougAEGPF

[moodz]

The U.S., like the majority of industrialized nations, is a party to the Paris Convention, an international treaty that provides reciprocal patent filing rights. Members of the Paris Convention are known as Convention countries. In order to acquire patent rights, the inventor must separately file a patent application in each Convention country. The advantage of the Paris Convention for a U.S. inventor is that the inventor’s filing date can be retained in another Convention country provided that the patent application is filed in the country within one year of the U.S. filing date (or six months for design patents). For example, an inventor files her U.S. patent application on May 1, 2011. If the inventor files a patent application in Canada before May 1, 2012, she will have priority over any other patents that may have been filed after May 1, 2011.

[Carl-NC]

It is my view that this patent GB2041 532A when combined with the methods developed by Eric Foster many years before (1967?) to cancel static magnetic fields cover most areas of TD Gb technology including linear combinations,”receive signal weighting” etc. Many subsequent TD Gb patents in my view are thus prior art!
dougAEGPF

Doug, ya just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. Just because someone has patented one specific method of GB doesn't mean that no one else can patent a different specific method. Even if that specific method uses weighting, combinations, and other means of ordinary math. "Your view" is what gets people sued.

[dougAEGPF]

The little guy is at a disadvantage in the patenting game. This applies to the U.S. laws, I'm not familar with the Australian patent law...
Allan

The same in Australia!!!The situation is perhaps a little better in Oz because of the introduction of Innovation Patents.
dougAEGPF

[Prospector_Al]

Hi Carl,

You're right, signal weighting has been done "forever". I did it at least forty years ago, in a tramp metal detector. Usually, the later sample amplitude is multiplied so that subtraction yields a null. This is to cancel out the background signal--in my case, the load of ore on the conveyor belt. This is analogous to the ground signal with a hand-held detector. In an industrial setting, you see more material passing by the coil system in a day than a guy swinging a hand-held detector sees in a life-time. The flaws in a scheme show up much quicker in industrial detectors and the ideas never get patented.

This patent is very poorly written. The claims don't mention the different Tx pulse lengths. With only one length, the later sample must be weighted more heavily to make any sense.

A method claim and an apparatus claim are complementary, nothing unusual there, but the patent can be easily defeated in court, in my opinion.

I found another idea recycled from old technology: Recovering the energy stored in the Tx coil. In the case of industrial detectors with large coils, the amount of energy recovered can be considerable, but the drawback is that the return of the coil current to zero is slowed down, with the consequence that small targets are not detected as well. I discarded the idea...

In my opinion, the bar for an invention has been lowered too much. An "invention" like the one above is simply within the skill of "one skilled in the art".

Another thing that works against the independent inventor is that many of the patents filed are "paper patents". The inventor has never tried the invention--the whole object is to freeze out others who might try the idea. In the old days, a patent had to be "reduced to practice", i.e., you had to actually make the device before filing a patent. A change in patent law made filing a patent "constructive reduction to practice". A large company with an attorney on retainer can thus file loads of patents with little cost.

Another, more recent change in U.S. patent law is that it's not the one who is first to invent, it's the one first to file, who gets the patent. This is an invitation to steal ideas, in my opinion--very bad law.

The little guy is at a disadvantage in the patenting game. This applies to the U.S. laws, I'm not familar with the Australian patent law...

All the best to the inventors on the Forum,


Allan

[dougAEGPF]

IMO, even if this method has merit it is a wasted patent; I would have just kept it a trade secret.

The problem with trade secrets is that if a competitor discovers or unlocks your trade secrets by good luck or sheer hard work (ie not improperly) then they are free to use it I believe with legal impunity and perhaps even patent it or an improved variant of it?
dougAEGPF

[dougAEGPF]

It happens that the blokes on this forum cannot afford those heftily prices gizmo sold by likes of ML and are on the verge learning the best configuration for their end use - someday - in very near future blokes will have "linux" like open source MD for their effort and fun - and somebody called "trolls" will try endlessly to patent every technical phrases "methods" exposed here - like bleeep-bleeep cartoon story.

It is my view that this patent GB2041 532A when combined with the methods developed by Eric Foster many years before (1967?) to cancel static magnetic fields cover most areas of TD Gb technology including linear combinations,”receive signal weighting” etc. Many subsequent TD Gb patents in my view are thus prior art!
GB2041532A.pdf
dougAEGPF

[vbeeeks]

It happens that the blokes on this forum cannot afford those heftily prices gizmo sold by likes of ML and are on the verge learning the best configuration for their end use - someday - in very near future blokes will have "linux" like open source MD for their effort and fun - and somebody called "trolls" will try endlessly to patent every technical phrases "methods" exposed here - like bleeep-bleeep cartoon story.

[Carl-NC]

Back to patents... since no one has read '6044, here is what it basically covers... They are patenting the use of a receive signal weighting function, whereby the weighting decreases vs time. In Fig 2, curves (65) and (66) show target responses, and curves (6 show a desired weighting function. It does not matter if the end design uses multiple pulse widths (as shown in Fig 2) as this is not a claim or a restriction of the patent.

Now, is it a good patent? IMO, There are severe shortcomings. First, receive signal weighting has been done forever and ever in all sorts of systems, like radar and ultrasound. Receive signal weighting that increases with time has already been done even in metal detectors, and this probably wasn't understood by the examiner. Ergo, the simple claim of "receive signal weighting" probably should never have passed the non-obvious clause.

Next, the patent does not claim any particular use for the weighting, other than a vague "may be used to improve SNR" in the patent body. It would have made more sense if the claims added something to the effect, "whereby the weighted signal is subtracted from a non-weighted signal to produce a blah blah blah." This would have been a non-obvious specific application of the weighting method, which would have been patentable.

Finally, even the patent admits this kind of function is best done in digital-land, where it is easy to hide. The patent is therefore almost un-defendable. It would have to be very obvious that a detector is using this method in software in order to launch legal action and get access to the source code.

IMO, even if this method has merit it is a wasted patent; I would have just kept it a trade secret. But it underscores the need to actually read the whole patent and understand exactly what it is the patent is saying, and claiming. So many times I've seen people rip into a patent (or the patentee), often on woefully wrong assumptions. And often the patent deserves a good ripping on other grounds that are completely missed. But you also need to understand the patent so you can avoid infringement.

[mickstv]

The best way to handle UF is just ignore his posts, don't reply to any of them.

[UrbanFox]

I couldn't even figure out what the heck he was trying to argue for or against, so a no-reply is probably the right approach.

Is that a "couldn't even figure out", Carl, or is it a "don't want to figure out"??

[Carl-NC]

UF. I have no inclination or need to reply to your post no.35, whose purpose appears to be to stir the pot. I have been involved with PI detectors for 47 years, and I hope a few more yet. I have seen how the business works, who to avoid and who to work with; who has copied and who has asked permission. My business model has worked for me. Now, I have some constructive work to get on with, so cheerio.

Eric.

I couldn't even figure out what the heck he was trying to argue for or against, so a no-reply is probably the right approach.

[6666]

I will share this KISS-masterpiece with you of course.

Thanks Aziz.

[moodz]

Hi
Interesting topic
Ive sold quite a few DIY detector coils for various brands and models that are known to us, no serious money involved but has proved theres money to be made if I wasnt doing anything else
The fact that I invented my own type of faraday shielding mix, which is brilliant may I add, should protect me from copyrights up to a point
Or I say hopefully because its a dog eats dog world out there, if I started advertising and got big they probly have my guts for garters.
In my humble opinion if people like us and indeed established manufactures didnt bend the patent rules just a tad they wouldnt get anywhere and end up frightened of there own shadow.
Them who dares often wins, a very true to life saying in allot of aspects of life not just MDs.
Note... If you dont hear from me again its because one of the big boys has offered me mega money to join there company and willing to buy my business from me because of my wonderful potion.
Id jump at the chance without hesitation, I could actually relax for once and a while and still come on here under another name, and be able to spend quality time with my family.
Pipe dreaming I know but sure feel better.
Kind
Regards

...from Carl's rules .... If you have a good idea "keep yer trap shut". But you are right Dave. ... I always subscribe to the rule "select brain before engaging mouth". It will all come together in 2023 when the Ultimate Detector on a chip is released.

[moodz]

No, the patent has nothing to do with long/short TX cycles to help with GB. Again, read the whole patent. The example given in the preferred embodiment happens to have 2 TX pulse widths, but the method being patented has nothing to do with multiple pulse widths. From what I know of the QED, it is nowhere close to this patent.

- Carl

Like Carl says. ....you posted method "B"....