Tweet
The best way to handle UF is just ignore his posts, don't reply to any of them.
-
-
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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!Originally posted by vbeeeks View Post
GB2041532A.pdf
dougAEGPFComment
-
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?Originally posted by Carl-NC View Post
dougAEGPFComment
-
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,
AllanComment
-
The same in Australia!!!The situation is perhaps a little better in Oz because of the introduction of Innovation Patents.Originally posted by Prospector_Al View Post
dougAEGPFComment
-
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.Originally posted by dougAEGPF View PostComment
-
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.Comment
-
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?
dougAEGPFComment
-
Al, I don't disagree that the state of patents is absurdly pathetic, mostly due to incompetence at the examination level. They should more strictly enforce the novelty/obviousness/usefulness requirements. I also agree that first-to-file exacerbates the problem. However, "skilled in the arts" is relative... I continue to see things posted on this forum that make me think, "Wow, what a cool way to do that!" Some of the ideas are patent-worthy.
Doug, I don't know.Comment
-
Originally posted by Carl-NC View Post
Eric Foster
“The Poole patent filed in 1979 (GB 2041532) covered just about everything, subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking "any number of samples".
http://www.geotech1.com/forums/showt...ht=ferric+toes
dougAEGPFComment
-
One of these days, Doug, you are going to realise that all your whinging and whining does not make one iota of difference to the patent status quo. What Eric Foster may say on the matter on Geotech is likewise irrelevant as far as causing change is concerned.Originally posted by dougAEGPF View Post
You need to seek professional help!
Comment
-
Eric was right, the patent does cover all those elements. But that does not prevent another patent on a different GB method that uses those elements.Originally posted by dougAEGPF View Post
Here's a question for ya... using the Poole method, subtracting the samples not only cancels ground, but also reduces target sensitivity and creates a target hole. What if I've figured out how to cancel ground without reducing target sensitivity or getting the target hole? Yep, it still uses subtraction, adding gain in a sampling channel, ratio of samples, and taking any number of samples.Comment
-
Comment