Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

Yes, those things have been going on for 6 years now. I wonder when we will ever see some results?

Sorry to be so cynical, but history has proven that this kind of talk is utterly worthless.

- Carl

With Woody on the "public relations" team the QED is going to be the top dog any week now!!!!

[Carl-NC]

There are things going on at the moment that offer a far more advanced way of doing what is in the M/L GB patent. If what is brewing turns out to be as good as I suspect then it could turn the P.I market on its head.

Yes, those things have been going on for 6 years now. I wonder when we will ever see some results?

Sorry to be so cynical, but history has proven that this kind of talk is utterly worthless.

- Carl

[Woody.au]

Hi Carl, its nothing to do with invalidating them, (Unregistered user is looking into that particular avenue) There are things going on at the moment that offer a far more advanced way of doing what is in the M/L GB patent. If what is brewing turns out to be as good as I suspect then it could turn the P.I market on its head.

[Carl-NC]

I have an inkling that the current M/L patents may be as valuable as the proverbial tits on a Bull.

Is this based on something specific about their patents that would invalidate them, or just a general dislike of Minelab?

[Woody.au]

I have an inkling that the current M/L patents may be as valuable as the proverbial tits on a Bull.

[Carl-NC]

In Claim 1 of the patent the use of 2 different pulse lengths with one of them being a minimum of 4 times longer is cited.

That's only a portion of Claim 1, and does not (nor was intended to) stand alone. Claim 1 is set up as such:

A detection apparatus consisting of:
- transmission means
- detecting means
- measurement means
- processing means
- indication means

None of the 5 portions constitute an individual claim. Ferinstance, in the second portion Candy is not trying to patent the use of a coil for detecting a target signal (that would be obviously silly); rather, it is an integral part of the overall claim.

This is a standard way of making claims in patents, where an overall method is laid out in the first claim, and subsequent claims offer details and variations. There is nothing wrong with this.

- Carl

[bugwhiskers]

Hi carl,

In Claim 1 of the patent the use of 2 different pulse lengths with one of them being a minimum of 4 times longer is cited.

regards
bugwhiskers

[Carl-NC]

My beef is the patent description would at first glance lead people to believe they were patenting the use of Multiperiod.

The description suggests they are patenting a discrimination method using multiperiod, not an all-encompassing "use of multiperiod." I thought your objection to Candy's patent went well beyond just the title, but maybe that was from other people. I still don't see how this is exactly the same concept as Poole.

- Carl

[bugwhiskers]

Hi Carl,

I was saying quite the opposite. Natural Physics cannot be patented but different methods of extracting data or harnessing it can. My beef is the patent description would at first glance lead people to believe they were patenting the use of Multiperiod.

regards
bugwhiskers

[Carl-NC]

Candy's patent 5,537,041 has at the very top and in bold letters

Discriminating time domain conducting metal detector utilising multi-period rectangular transmitted pulses.

How the patent examiners allowed the above description of the patent beggars belief.

Clearly, the use of multi-period pulses or the interchangeable multi frequency was pioneered by Poole. The way I see it the use of different
pulse lengths/frequencies is now public domain and can freely be used by all.

At best the patent examiners have allowed the patenting of "A" method of obtaining a target signal from the matrix by differentiation of the ground via different pulse lengths/frequencies. There are always more than one way to skin a cat.

And the Westinghouse multifrequency patent predates Poole. But are you saying that once someone has a patent (or application) on "multifrequency" that no one else can ever obtain a patent on any kind of multifrequency technique?

As an analogy, basic phase discrimination is now in the public domain and lots of VLF machines use it. Does this specifically prevent someone from trying to patent a PI (time domain) discrimination technique? If the circuit method they use is entirely different than traditional phase discrimination, would failure to cite every phase discrimination patent (or reference) nullify the patent?

- Carl

[bugwhiskers]

A pack of lies is not a good way to start your journey here patches junior. Validation of this is easy, check out the membership list of POZ.

If still not convinced then check out Finders forum and see what patches junior has said about his supposed "friends".

Minor annoyances aside, back to topic:

Candy's patent 5,537,041 has at the very top and in bold letters

Discriminating time domain conducting metal detector utilising multi-period rectangular transmitted pulses.

How the patent examiners allowed the above description of the patent beggars belief.

Clearly, the use of multi-period pulses or the interchangeable multi frequency was pioneered by Poole. The way I see it the use of different
pulse lengths/frequencies is now public domain and can freely be used by all.

At best the patent examiners have allowed the patenting of "A" method of obtaining a target signal from the matrix by differentiation of the ground via different pulse lengths/frequencies. There are always more than one way to skin a cat.

regards
bugwhiskers

[PATCHES JUNIOR]

G'day everyone!! Just joined this site today!!! I am a good friend of doug, woody and and a few other experts. Hope to learn some good stuff here, and put my expertize in now and then!!!!

[Aziz]

Hot, very hot rocks!

Did you ever see such hot rocks (iron oxides)?

http://vimeo.com/3712054

Maybe a good place to test some detectors. I am not sure, but I would swear, that I also saw some pure iron.

Should we start with the ground balancing there?
No, just enjoy the impressive HD video. You will like it.
Aziz

[Rov]

ive met Bruce Candy,several times thru very early sales ventures only! many years ago ,Norwood S.A. stores,Paynem,St.Peters stores,Australia.The very first Detector Developments,Means nothing now! 1989-1990s.First M/L developments?
Its All Just Commercial interest only? patents developments?
As a Hobbiest!,Developer? give me More?
Now the Next Patent Developer for PI an M/D ,Please???
Yeh,got Hardwares,Workshop,racks,racks,discretes,Ic,bit more time??
not just a keyboard junkie as most?

[Carl-NC]

Its not Minelab bashing, it is aimed at the spin that comes with the hangers on.

I've seen historically what Doug's forums are all about, and they are all about Minelab bashing. And bashing anyone who supports Minelab. He actively baits people into arguments and uses personal attacks as standard debating tools. Keep the trash talk on his forums, I don't want it here.

I agree with you on Minelab's marketing claims. But I also have to give them credit, they've been extremely effective with their marketing. Another example is their 17/28 frequency nonsense that's been going on for almost 20 years. They've truly convinced a lot of people that they really analyze all those frequencies, and that anything less isinferior. But V3, truly running 3 frequencies, is beating E-Trac and White's can now go after those bogus claims. That's what I mean by beat them with a better product; until you show up with a better PI gold detector, you can complain about Minelab all you want, and no one is going to give a damn.

Still, patent claims, like marketing claims, are legitimate areas of discussion, so if you want to debate the merits of particular patents, go right ahead! Just keep it polite.

- Carl