Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[Carl-NC]

That's interesting, that many countries have their own regulations. Private purpose does not mean, that you can sell the device. That would be then a commercial interest. I know, the international laws on patenting have still many disputes between Europe and America.

Yes, and I'm only familiar with US patent law.

But what is, when an already published idea is patented later? Isn't this a pure plagiarism?

Maybe, maybe not. It could be an oversight. It could be a misinterpretation of the original idea. It could be a slight variation in the idea.

I have a patent with Analog Devices that I later found out fell squarely on top of a prior patent, that I missed finding because it was in a completely different application. In another case, Motorola tried to sue us over a patent they obtained in ~1991, over a technique that we considered common-place and for which I found internal documentation dated 1969.

Considering the costs of patents and especially the costs of defending one, I have doubts that anyone would pursue a patent they know will be weak and easily overturned, unless the purpose of the patent is for marketing (and lots of people do this).

- Carl

[Fred]

Originally Posted by Fred
Can it be exported then to the country where the device is patented?
If so,with the actual globalization, patenting anything would be almost a nonsense...

I repectably suggest to the moderator and to you Aziz that talk of illegal activity be considered with great caution. Aziz you actually stand to benefit if you play by the rules.
And those rules apply equally to anyone found out no matter how respectable they have appeared up until now.

So lets just keep this legal, on topic and in the spirit of honesty.

Thank you.

Are you crazy? i just asked this to understand how things works, and you call for moderation and censure ?
You seem to be very touchy on the subject, but it is not by hiding facts that you will resolve eventuals problems.

No ... if something is considered a patent infringement in another country, then you cannot export it to that country.

Thanks Qiaozhi,
What i mean is i that i don´t know is if there is international agreements about patents .
And this only as personal curiosity about how things works in the world, i have no comercial intererst on the matter

[Qiaozhi]

Thanks Qiaozhi,
What i mean is i that i don´t know is if there is international agreements about patents .
And this only as personal curiosity about how things works in the world, i have no comercial intererst on the matter

Hi Fred,

Nor do I.

[unregistered_user]

Pooles precience still amazes me.

Now class for home work read Poole's paragraph 70 and tomorrow bring in your copy of Fig1 with the wide band detectors and bandpass filters that Poole foresaw would solve the ground problem.

Yes bug_whiskers you can use lock in amps as combined narrow band filters detectors, everyone else was supposed to work that out for themselves remember to use the right frequencies for your lock in amps though.

Roby...still haven't finished yet? Tomorrow perhaps then?

[unregistered_user]

Sorry Fred I don't want to create the wrong impression that's all.
Who knows where this will lead and perception can be spun into a negative.
I certainly don't condone censorship in any shape or form whatsoever.


Now onto a more fruitful topic.

I commend you all to listen or read this behind the office door presentation from patent litigation expert.

http://www.bbcle.com/process

It seems to cover the lot.

[unregistered_user]

And this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination

[unregistered_user]

Regarding the overall significance of Candy's inovative use of anothers patent with obscurantism it occured to me that to try and claim infringement of his own patent wrt to using 2 frequencies to significantly reduce ground returns and comparing the difference of those returns due to frequency alone then he would have to concede that there is a direct recipricol translatation between Pooles analog frequency domain inovation into a digital time domain solution and compare the results mathmatically to prove his case.

[unregistered_user]

Today of course there are much better ways of extracting the ground returns by using more than one frequency in a metal detector in the frequency domain as first pointed out by Poole its quite trivial.

[unregistered_user]

Such as treating the ground as an S paramater network and use standard vector network technologies. Compare the difference etc etc Patent that! If you can get away with it now that I've mentioned it.

[unregistered_user]

How's this for a new project guys?

A Frequency Flexible Vector Network Metal Detector that uses in part or combination but not limted to synchronous detection wide band or narrow band in combination or singly, pulsed and or continous wave in combination or singly that compares ground returns with ground + target returns using mathmatical transforms implemented in software or hardware in combination or singly the frequecy or time domain in combination or singly. Using both phase and amplitude information in combination or singly. Data can be stored or processing can be done in real time. Presentation to the human operator can be audible or visual

Claim1 For the purposes of significantly removing ground returns more than one frequency is transmitted into the ground and the return is measured differences in frequency only will remove a target from ground clutter.

Prize for the first poster to come up with a diagram, start with Pooles Fig1 if you like resistors on the coils are optional and you can use one or more coils

Just an idea.

[unregistered_user]

It possible that amplitude saturation compensation might also be of benefit to metals detectors.

Roby what do you think?

[unregistered_user]

Of course once you move outside the "traditional PI" detector sample window the worlds your oyster.

There's nothing to stop anyone sampling the entire return and throwing away the bits they don't want.


Anyway the much more interesting feature of the SD2000 is the variable slope linear aproximation of an exponential return comparator for want of better words. With low frequency and no return or background "ground cancellation" again with variable slope linear aproximation".

Now there is an area ripe for mining.

Simple and eloquent. And if not already clearly in the public domain.

Anyone else notice that?

Anyone care to draw the detection window and compare to various patents claimed....?

Roby?

[unregistered_user]

It seems that background cancellation by the comparing the linear aproximation of exponential decay in a metal detector is covered by this Poole patent

http://goldprospecting.invisionplus....=post&id=11704

Compare Fig 1 with my description of the SD2000 and where the samples are taken notice the clever way the first and last samples are subtracted ............by design? OMG!!!!

I can see all Poole needed to do was use his other patent as well and he would have an SD2000 just imagine what you could do with todays zero drift low noise stuff? All he would have had in those days was a 709.

OK to be fair Poole doesn't mention taking a sample with no pulse to cancel background noise
Nor does he mention being able to fine tune the slope of the linear exponential decay aproximator (I must look more into that).

[unregistered_user]

I wonder if Poole was **** at math?

His explanations just breath with translucense.

[Woody.au]

"A small number of reexaminations are initiated by the patent office itself. These are called “director initiated” reexaminations. They might be filed when a patent of questionable validity attains a lot of publicity. The director, for example, ordered several of the reexaminations of the NTP, Inc. patents that covered BlackBerry mobile email technology."


So who has an RF background?