I suspect that if one were to search through the patent literature, one
would find that many, many designs that are in common use by hams are
actually patented. And, as Paul points out, many of them probably wouldn't
stand up in a challenge. There are several reasons for this that I can see.
1) The vast majority of patents never have their maintenance fees paid,
indicating that the owner doesn't believe it has significant value
2) Some patents are filed for speculative purposes, and to establish prior
art, so you can't be submarined later. They're also a useful negotiating
lever if someone patents something you're already doing and comes after you,
a not uncommon situation given the many year delay between filing and
issuing of patents. If owner B comes to you claiming you infringe, then you
can tell him, well, it looks like you're infringing my patent A, it would
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to thrash it out in court, so why
don't we just cross license and call it even. (of such deals are the
complexities of things like MPEG licensing built). It also looks good to
ignorant investors, e.g. Our soon to IPO company has a portfolio of 235
patents! Send money now!
3) The examiners are under huge pressure to reduce the "time in the system",
particularly with the old scheme were apps were secret until patent issue,
largely because of the "submarine patent" problem. Therefore, they tend to
issue the patents, figuring that if it is important, someone will break the
patent later in court. I had a patent with some 75 claims issued, and I
fully expected half the claims to be thrown out, but they weren't. There's
also a difference in the purpose of the disclosure of the invention and in
the claims. Some of the claims get put in there in case another (more
general) claim gets knocked out. Many times you'll see something like:
1) A device for tuning antennas
2) The device in claim 1 where there are adjustable capacitors and inductors
3) the device in claim 1 where there are adjustable capacitors and fixed
inductors
4) the device in claim 1 where there are fixed inductors and adjustable
capacitors
5) ... where the adjustable capacitor is continuously variable
6) ... where the adjustable capacitor is variable in discrete steps
7) as in 6, where the steps are equal in value
8) as in 6, where the steps are different in value
and so on...
If the examiner decides that, hey, antenna tuners have been around a while,
so claim 1 isn't valid, and knocks it out, the patent still has all the rest
of the claims. One thing to remember is that once you've filed the
application, and the examiner comes back with comments, you can't add claims
to replace ones he knocked out. You can only, really, correct errors, or
provide more disclosure.
The disclosure establishes prior art for succeeding patents and provides the
basis for why it's novel (in the section where you "knock prior art"). The
claims provide the basis for infringement claims. You can disclose all
kinds of stuff, but claim very little, and have a very good chance of having
your patent granted, and then, you can go to those investors with that shiny
new patent.
4) Some truly strong patents do have an air of "gosh, I could have thought
of that" to them. Especially when they combine two aspects of prior art in
a novel (unpublished) way. A good idea is a good idea, and the beauty of a
fundamental advance is that any idiot can see it's a good idea, once it's
written down. It's that "reduction to practice" thing.
5) The sheer volume of places where prior art might appear is so huge these
days. A patent examiner would have a tough time keeping up with it. It's
not like you could just read the IEEE Transactions on XYZ or google for it.
Unless the applicant, or one of the previous cited patents, cites a
particular source for prior art, if it's at all obscure, I suspect that the
examiner won't know about it. Say that all the discussion establishing prior
art for a type of antenna (or tuner) were exclusively on this mailing list?
Jim W6RMK
(holder (but not assignee) of two patents... neither radio related)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Christensen, Esq." <w9ac@arrl.net>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>; "W0UN -- John Brosnahan" <shr@swtexas.net>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 5:42 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request
> While I do not have experience as a patent examiner, I do have several
> patents pending with the USPTO. I agree with John's assessment of the
> XMatch patent.
>
> The validity of any patent stands or falls based upon its claims. The
> XMatch patent contains only seven claims with claims 5 through 7
describing
> a means for switching an input to an aux port (5); a bypass to ground (6);
> and a bypass to an aux port (7).
>
> Claims 2 and 3 simply describes the use of a Pi and L network. The meat
of
> the claims rest with claims (1) and (4) in that it describes a way for
> switching the networks alone....little more is claimed in the XMatch
patent
> other than a means for switching a Pi and/or L network.
>
> In order to obtain a valid patent, the invention must be (1) useful; (2)
> novel; and (3) non-obvious. Useful means that the invention is capable
> (through utility) of serving a useful purpose. Novelty in this context
means
> that the invention was not fully disclosed in a single prior-art
reference.
> *The obviousness standard refers to the invention not being obvious to one
> skilled in the art to which the invention pertains on the basis of a
single
> reference or a combination of references.*
>
> In my opinion, the XMatch patent completely fails to satisfy the third
> requirement. I suspect the issuing patent examiner did not comprehend the
> patent claims: Bogus patents are issued every day.
>
> -Paul, W9AC
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "W0UN -- John Brosnahan" <shr@swtexas.net>
> To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 7:48 AM
> Subject: [TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request
>
>
> > At 04:48 AM 12/1/2003, Larry Stowell wrote:
> >
> > >http://n4xm.myiglou.com/
> > >
> > >I don't see the price and it costs $3 for more info by snail mail?
> >
> >
> > If you want more information you can always review Paul Schrader's
> > patent -- 4,763,087 issued August 9, 1988.
> >
> >
>
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1
&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,763,087.WKU.&OS=PN/4,763,087&RS=P
> N/4,763,087
> >
> > Paul uses quality components but the tuner is nothing more than
> > a configurable PI-network or L-network with complex switching
> > to allow the specific configuration to be easily chosen from the
> > front panel. To me at least, a patent on how to switch a capacitor and
> > an inductor to various arrangements is not rocket science and
> > probably doesn't deserve a patent. But rather it just represents
> > good engineering art. (My opinion on patentability is from one who
> > holds a number of US and foreign patents but does not possess
> > any legal insight! YMMV)
> >
> > It is a commercial product using commercial (read--expensive)
> > components but the functionality can easily be duplicated using
> > surplus parts for a lot less money. Building an antenna tuner
> > from surplus parts is one of the easiest and yet most satisfying
> > home brew projects there is.
> >
> > 73--John W0UN
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.543 / Virus Database: 337 - Release Date: 11/21/2003
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
> Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
any
> questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TowerTalk mailing list
> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|