Minelab MPS patent could be invalid

[$80millionbooboo]

An expired patent that predates Candys patent has surfaced. The patent was dated 1979 and the Candy one is 1996. I have seen both documents and it is exactly the same concept. I would link but i do not know how.

[Unregistered]

Ahhhh in this day and age with 10 trillion dollar deficits and 1 trillion dollar bail outs 80,000,000 is small change

[Billiondollarbooboo]

Pooles 1979 Patent

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationD...C&locale=en_EP

http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationD..._EP&CC=GB&FT=D

Candy 1996 Patent

http://www.invisionplus.net/forums/i...=post&id=11453

[Rov]

Yep! we seen it now! just have to Physically implement these ideas into Hardware here an now?I suppose easier said than done!for most outside of a development lab,with all the $$$,understanding anTime etc.

[Unregistered]

Yep! we seen it now! just have to Physically implement these ideas into Hardware here an now?I suppose easier said than done!for most outside of a development lab,with all the $$$,understanding anTime etc.

It seems that Whites or any of the larger detector companies may now be free to use multiple length TX pulses to null the ground signal? If ML kick up a stink then one can just produce Poole's patent application and say that your multiple length Tx method for ground nulling is based on Poole's which predates Candy's 1991 patent application or his 1996 Patent.

[Unregistered]

Lets hope that Whites drop that tdi piece of trash and use pooles patent and make a detector that performs.

[Unregistered]

I thought Sean Goddard invented MPS and multi-frequency? The proof is in a secure safe!

[Unregistered]

I thought Sean Goddard invented MPS and multi-frequency? The proof is in a secure safe!

Did he invent it before Poole's patent application?

[Unregistered]

Well, either way minelab have been bluffing the detector manufacturers and the public for years. Rogues!

[Unregistered]

Well, either way minelab have been bluffing the detector manufacturers and the public for years. Rogues!

This Candy VLF patent should never have been granted either. I think it is just a sophisticated rehash of Poole's expired patent application is it not?
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationD...C&locale=en_EP
I did not think you could re patent something that has been in the public domain before your patent? This sort of makes patents a bit of a joke I think!

[Unregistered]

This Candy has no shame, riding on the backs of greater inventors. Fancy doing a rewrite of someone elses old patent and saying it is his! Those Australians are a funny bunch!

[Rudy]

An expired patent that predates Candys patent has surfaced. The patent was dated 1979 and the Candy one is 1996. I have seen both documents and it is exactly the same concept. I would link but i do not know how.

The concepts is not what is important in a patent. What is important is what is written in the Claims section. That is what is being protected.

I haven't read the two patents in question yet, but just wanted to clarify how patents work.

[Unregistered]

The concepts is not what is important in a patent. What is important is what is written in the Claims section. That is what is being protected.

I haven't read the two patents in question yet, but just wanted to clarify how patents work.

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

[Woody.au]

So who has enough Balls to take on Codan/Minelab ? Should I say enough money? The only way to get a Patent quashed is via a submission to the Patents office. You would need some serious expert testimony. Then again just use whats in Pooles patent exactly as claimed. You may end up with a Minelab.

[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"