Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[Rudy]

Thanks.So are you saying that the CONCEPT/METHOD used in Poole's patent could be used by ANYONE in the frequency/time domain?

In the case of Poole's expired patent, which predates the other patents in question, whatever is written in the description or theory of operations, prior art, and the Claims section is now public domain and can not be patented.

Since his patent expired, anything described in the prior art section (if any), must by consequence have expired as well so it can be freely used. Anything that is exactly as described in the Claims section can also be freely used.

Now, where it gets interesting, is what happens when you take one of Poole's claim and modify it (presumably to make it work better), then claim it in your own patent. Here, the inventor is duty bound to disclose in his patent application any applicable prior art. The patent examiner --if he is on the ball-- should disallow any claims that are clearly "anticipated" by a previous inventor and deny the claim as written, requiring the applicant to write a more focused (restricted) claim and resubmit the patent application.

A patent can be invalidated by showing that: the claims, as written, had been previously patented and the patent expired; the technique had been in use prior to the patent filing and are therefore unenforceable; the claim consists of of something that is not patentable (for any of the above or other reasons) plus an addition/modification that would be "obvious to those skilled in the art", meaning someone with knowledge of the technology would see the change/addition as obvious.

Invalidating a patent is usually not attempted, until such time as the patent holder tries to enforce the patent, simply because it takes money to pursue it in the courts.

[Unregistered]

You guys need to do your homework. Candy references Poole's patent in a couple of his own. In one Candy's, states the differences in his method and Poole's. Although it may be weak it is published. Look at the top of US 5,506,506 "2004069 3/1979 United Kingdom"

Sure but is it his 1996 pi patent? thats the point, this patent is clearly prior art! pooles method in the time domain as modified by Candy and then hidden with a lot of mathematical waffle! Patent should never have been granted!

[robby_h]

Lol, another naive attack on Minelab and Bruce Candy by the unregistered technically stone age men from the misinformationinOz forum.

Brings back fond memories of your old forum where you took a paragraph from one ML patent (A), which briefly referred to another ML patent (B) and tried to make it apply to patent (A) in a silly attempt to destroy the patent. You were then dumb enough to ask my opinion and my answer resulted in you dropping the subject like a hot potato!!

In patent 5576624, Candy didn't need to address GB2004069A, which is IB. He instead addressed Poole's patent GB2041532A. The examiners obviously knew about both patents and you are telling them they got it wrong?

Regarding Poole's reference to the term "pulse". There is no need to transmit two different length PI pulses to transmit two different frequencies! A single length PI pulse train transmits a broad range of frequencies, not one!!!

You obviously aren't aware of this but if we transmit two wildly different pulse lengths and the tx waveform flat tops before the end of each pulse then the ground signal after each pulse will be identical!!!!!!!! Where does Poole mention what would be required to obtain a different result? and how could you or anyone else possibly get frequency mixed up with pulse lengths?

GB2004069A Poole said "It can be shown that the principal impedance in an eddy current loop set up in the ground is resistive whereas for a piece of metal this impedance is inductive."

Not quite right if referring to "the ground" in general because short TC metal targets are also mainly resistive and inland soil X dominates R by a large factor and the reactive component isn't resistive!!

Poole attempts to use two frequencies to only address what he referrs to as the resistive ground component, nothing else!!!!!! He makes no attempt to cancel mineralisation as we know it by using two different frequency's at all!!! Do you understand this? It is obvious in both of Poole's patents that he is only addressing wet sea side sand and saline soils and you are actually telling readers here and on your own forum that Candy's and Poole's patents are somehow similar and Woody says Candy's patent is a carbon copy of Poole's????

You have got one thing right though, your recent statement on your forum re needing an electronic /patent expert is correct, although you should be also looking for someone who knows IB and PI basics, and someone who can solve simple circuit problems would also help.

Woody,
"Then again just use whats in Pooles patent exactly as claimed. You may end up with a Minelab".
This from a guy who "modifies" Minelab PI detectors and claims to know how they work!!

[Unregistered]

Robby H, The Bruce Candy you have when you do not have a Bruce Candy. It's not long until the rest of Bruce Candy's patents expire so its no issue in the larger scheme of things.

[Woody.au]

Robby H, why do the modified "older detectors" beat the pants of Minelabs GPX-4500 ? Why does Minelab have so many recalls on their detectors?

Surely they must know what they are doing?

[Unregistered]

Lol, another naive attack on Minelab and Bruce Candy by the unregistered technically stone age men from the misinformationinOz forum.

Brings back fond memories of your old forum where you took a paragraph from one ML patent (A), which briefly referred to another ML patent (B) and tried to make it apply to patent (A) in a silly attempt to destroy the patent. You were then dumb enough to ask my opinion and my answer resulted in you dropping the subject like a hot potato!!

In patent 5576624, Candy didn't need to address GB2004069A, which is IB. He instead addressed Poole's patent GB2041532A. The examiners obviously knew about both patents and you are telling them they got it wrong?

Regarding Poole's reference to the term "pulse". There is no need to transmit two different length PI pulses to transmit two different frequencies! A single length PI pulse train transmits a broad range of frequencies, not one!!!

You obviously aren't aware of this but if we transmit two wildly different pulse lengths and the tx waveform flat tops before the end of each pulse then the ground signal after each pulse will be identical!!!!!!!! Where does Poole mention what would be required to obtain a different result? and how could you or anyone else possibly get frequency mixed up with pulse lengths?

GB2004069A Poole said "It can be shown that the principal impedance in an eddy current loop set up in the ground is resistive whereas for a piece of metal this impedance is inductive."

Not quite right if referring to "the ground" in general because short TC metal targets are also mainly resistive and inland soil X dominates R by a large factor and the reactive component isn't resistive!!

Poole attempts to use two frequencies to only address what he referrs to as the resistive ground component, nothing else!!!!!! He makes no attempt to cancel mineralisation as we know it by using two different frequency's at all!!! Do you understand this? It is obvious in both of Poole's patents that he is only addressing wet sea side sand and saline soils and you are actually telling readers here and on your own forum that Candy's and Poole's patents are somehow similar and Woody says Candy's patent is a carbon copy of Poole's????

You have got one thing right though, your recent statement on your forum re needing an electronic /patent expert is correct, although you should be also looking for someone who knows IB and PI basics, and someone who can solve simple circuit problems would also help.

Woody,
"Then again just use whats in Pooles patent exactly as claimed. You may end up with a Minelab".
This from a guy who "modifies" Minelab PI detectors and claims to know how they work!!

"Signals originatng from ferrite materials may be cancelled in the low freqency path by feeding an LO frequency, the phase of which is controlled by means of a feedback loop."

Is IDENTICAL to Candys claim

He even does the math its as plain as day to anyone who is an EE

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Do an FT on the Minelab pulse train reveals Lo Freq + High Freq duplexed in pulse transmitter.

Subtract LF feedback sig (ferrite response) from HF feedback

work the rest out for yourself

[Unregistered]

I should add that in one tiny

"Signals originatng from ferrite materials may be cancelled in the low freqency path by feeding an LO frequency, the phase of which is controlled by means of a feedback loop."


".....the phase of which is controlled by means of a feedback loop"

is crudely redundant for PI of course, but it can still be used *wink*

The first diagram in Pooles patent has no phase control and is functionally equivalent to a multi frequency /multi sample PI.

Note the low pass filters Candy Club.

Clever beyond measure.

It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall at the patent lawyers office when that patent was dropped in front of the appealant.

I wonder if the words ferrite ...er sorry diamagnetic (waves hands) and complex reactive impedence ...er sorry X (and) R were mentioned (koffs) .....cancelled IS subtracted ...right right?

Shock horror.

[Unregistered]

Robby H bites the dust!
Candy is so smart he has done a knock off job.
Thank God for these sites so the filth can be exposed for what it is!

[Unregistered]

I've only skimmed Pooles patent but " high power noise source" ......ahem ......is NOT IB.


JFC.

[Unregistered]

Does anyone have the links to all of Minelab's patents?

[Unregistered]

Lol, another naive attack on Minelab and Bruce Candy by the unregistered technically stone age men from the misinformationinOz forum.

Brings back fond memories of your old forum where you took a paragraph from one ML patent (A), which briefly referred to another ML patent (B) and tried to make it apply to patent (A) in a silly attempt to destroy the patent. You were then dumb enough to ask my opinion and my answer resulted in you dropping the subject like a hot potato!!

In patent 5576624, Candy didn't need to address GB2004069A, which is IB. He instead addressed Poole's patent GB2041532A. The examiners obviously knew about both patents and you are telling them they got it wrong?

Regarding Poole's reference to the term "pulse". There is no need to transmit two different length PI pulses to transmit two different frequencies! A single length PI pulse train transmits a broad range of frequencies, not one!!!

You obviously aren't aware of this but if we transmit two wildly different pulse lengths and the tx waveform flat tops before the end of each pulse then the ground signal after each pulse will be identical!!!!!!!! Where does Poole mention what would be required to obtain a different result? and how could you or anyone else possibly get frequency mixed up with pulse lengths?

GB2004069A Poole said "It can be shown that the principal impedance in an eddy current loop set up in the ground is resistive whereas for a piece of metal this impedance is inductive."

Not quite right if referring to "the ground" in general because short TC metal targets are also mainly resistive and inland soil X dominates R by a large factor and the reactive component isn't resistive!!

Poole attempts to use two frequencies to only address what he referrs to as the resistive ground component, nothing else!!!!!! He makes no attempt to cancel mineralisation as we know it by using two different frequency's at all!!! Do you understand this? It is obvious in both of Poole's patents that he is only addressing wet sea side sand and saline soils and you are actually telling readers here and on your own forum that Candy's and Poole's patents are somehow similar and Woody says Candy's patent is a carbon copy of Poole's????

You have got one thing right though, your recent statement on your forum re needing an electronic /patent expert is correct, although you should be also looking for someone who knows IB and PI basics, and someone who can solve simple circuit problems would also help.

Woody,
"Then again just use whats in Pooles patent exactly as claimed. You may end up with a Minelab".
This from a guy who "modifies" Minelab PI detectors and claims to know how they work!!

Flat Tops? Bwaahaa haa haa haa

Resistive ground component, nothing else? Bwaaa haa haa haa

Look in the poole, thats not a bar of Candy floating on the surface.. Bwaa haa haa haa

[Unregistered]

Robby H, why do the modified "older detectors" beat the pants of Minelabs GPX-4500 ?

Only happens when your having a wet dream Woody!

2 experienced tester's in 2 states have given a ho hum to The Gp mods, and they are the only ones, other then newbies or people with a vested interest who have got their hands on one of these machines.

The bulk of these mods were devised by others, so maybe we should reveal your contribution.

Woody's mod is an "overclock of the processor to almost double the clock rate".
Of cause he doesn't have access to the firmware, so we have a doubling of such things as GB speed etc,(in 2 of the 3 minelab GP's, the GB was a bit too fast already for most.) so now we have the speed almost doubled, enabling detector's with Woody's mod to GB out any deep, quite target's.

Er.... ain't they the ones we most seek???

BTW, what was that thing about, "an out of work, forklift mechanic" in 2002???

[Unregistered]

Ah, I see the Unregistered wacko's from POZinOZ, are attempting to bring life to their meaninless existence, by becoming patent expert's.

Well I'll tell you a true story, and ask your expert opinion.

Back in, I think the 1920's an english car manufacturer patented a balance shaft to combat the normal imbalance in 4 cylinder engines, the patent run out and some years later, MItsubishi patented a balance shaft to combat the normal imbalance in 4 cylinder engines.

Looked and read almost exactly the same patent.

Porsche had imbalance problems with the 944 engines, so It had to pay Mitsubishi
to use their technology to cure the problem.

My question is: Why would Porsche pay anything? why not just take Mitsubishi on, they had the money???

The truth is it is the claims that matter, the rest is just words!

BTW. there is no need to mention who has the prior art, that is the examiners job.
One need only add, (...............to ameliorate the prior art)

[Unregistered]

The truth is it is the claims that matter, the rest is just words!

Post #21
"Signals originatng from ferrite materials may be cancelled in the low freqency path by feeding an LO frequency, the phase of which is controlled by means of a feedback loop."

Is IDENTICAL to Candys claim

[PITA]

Quote: Woody's mod is an "overclock of the processor to almost double the clock rate".
Of cause he doesn't have access to the firmware, so we have a doubling of such things as GB speed etc,(in 2 of the 3 minelab GP's, the GB was a bit too fast already for most.) so now we have the speed almost doubled, enabling detector's with Woody's mod to GB out any deep, quite target's. Unquote

Do you have any evidence of this(apart from the "symptoms"you described)? have you pulled the detector apart and proven it?

As far as the rest of it goes, multi frequency, multi period, who give a s_h!t. Build a detector based on multi frequency, and put that up candys b#t!