PTP and Smart Parts in a race for the patent to the Quick-Release feedneck

[rabidchihauhau]

Rogue,

If you want to start pulling special cases in - fine. From now on my posts will be 12 times as long so I can anticipate every possible objection in advance...

If someone wants to claim prior art after a grant - that's great. If they can prove it, great. That's a long and involved and expensive process that is usually raised when someone claims infringement and brought out as a defense.

On the other issue - you'll note that they stated that the matter was anticipated by the earlier claims.

Office actions go on all the time - with the examiner statting a contention regarding the claims and then the applicant having (multiple) opportunities to deal with it.

There was no delibverate attempt to 'double patent' in this case, it was merely a situation of covering the bases too thoroughly.

Obviousness is also a lot more complicated of an issue than just something similar having previously existed. Ultimately, the examiner decides what is and what isn't, (unless it gets thrown into a legal battle).

Pro-Team has been granted two applications on locking feednecks already, has the earliest filing date, overcame overly zealous examination that resulted in someone who copied its design being granted a patent for the exact same things covered by PTP's - and before PTP got issued their first one (all of which is getting straightened out) and is operating on the principle - like the patent office - that "paintball" is its own field of invention; therefore, even if you've seen prior art locking collar systems in some other application, the PTO has determined that inventing one for paintball is "new" enough.

I'll tell you, I fought that concept tooth and nail for about five years; a gun is a gun, a switch behind a trigger/lever is a switch behind a lever, etc., etc. so far as I'm concerned, and any idiot can walk into a hardware store or electronics shop and find 12 million things that can be adapted for paintball applications and they haven't invented anything 'new' - but thats not the way the folks in Virginia have defined the game and its an idiot in business that doesn't accept the rules and work with in them if they want to be successfull.

Sorry - but you can quote office actions all you want - the result is that most of the claims got granted as they were originally written and the remainder were either unnecessary (as in your example) or re-written in a manner that was acceptable to the examiner. That's part of the process and one of the things that makes getting a patent take so long. There's nothing 'illegal' or wrong with that, its the process.

[RogueFactor]

Rogue,

If you want to start pulling special cases in - fine. From now on my posts will be 12 times as long so I can anticipate every possible objection in advance...

If someone wants to claim prior art after a grant - that's great. If they can prove it, great. That's a long and involved and expensive process that is usually raised when someone claims infringement and brought out as a defense.

On the other issue - you'll note that they stated that the matter was anticipated by the earlier claims.

Office actions go on all the time - with the examiner statting a contention regarding the claims and then the applicant having (multiple) opportunities to deal with it.

There was no delibverate attempt to 'double patent' in this case, it was merely a situation of covering the bases too thoroughly.

Obviousness is also a lot more complicated of an issue than just something similar having previously existed. Ultimately, the examiner decides what is and what isn't, (unless it gets thrown into a legal battle).

#1 - the quote provided wasnt a special case. It was an office action of Non-Final Rejection for PTP's pending application linked above, date 8-30-2006.

#2 - Im glad youve admitted Patent law is not as cut and dry as you make it sound. That I can agree with.

Sorry - but you can quote office actions all you want - the result is that most of the claims got granted as they were originally written and the remainder were either unnecessary (as in your example) or re-written in a manner that was acceptable to the examiner. That's part of the process and one of the things that makes getting a patent take so long. There's nothing 'illegal' or wrong with that, its the process.

They were required to be re-written for a reason. As listed in the office actions.

I am fully aware there is nothing 'illegal' in re-writing them. However, if a patent's validity is contested, these actions can be used successfully to do so. Its the very reason why they are documented. So that a patent holder cannot 'twist' the facts as they see fit after-the-fact as to the reasons why they required being re-written in the first place.

And from what Ive read in this Application, there are only 3 claims. If all 3 were rejected, whats your definition of 'most'?

[thomas]

Would patent reform make it easier or harder to steal designs from CCM?

[RogueFactor]

Would patent reform make it easier or harder to steal designs from CCM?

Neither. CCM was denied a patent to their design.

You can find CCM's denied Patent Application here:

CCM Denied Application

[raehl]

If there is one thing I know about patents, it is that rabidchihauhau does not understand how patents work, and will grossly overstate their significance, especially when the patent involved is his or one of his friend's.

The first basic thing you have to understand about patents is a patent is a LEGAL PRESUMPTION that the person granted the patent is the actual inventor, that the invention is patentable, and that the patent holder thus has a limited-term exclusive right to manufacture and sell the patented invention.

The granting of the patent is a hurdle which gives the patent the 'benefit of the doubt', but is in no way final. Virtually *EVERY* facet of a patent grant can be challenged after issuance, both administratively and judicially.

You can argue that a patent should be invalidated because the invention is obvious and the original patent examiner erred in granting it. You can argue that the person named as the inventor isn't the actual inventor. You can argue that you invented the same invention before the person who filed the patent. This is a specific case where rabidchihauhauis in error - having an earlier filing date does NOT mean that your patent is valid and the other guy's isn't - it just means the other guy is going to have to prove that they actually invented the invention first. You can also argue that someone else invented the same thing first. You can argue that the description of the patented invention is not sufficient to allow someone else to produce the same invention.

It used to be that if you had to argue one of these things, the party with the patent would still almost certainly be able to prevent you, via an injunction, from making or using the patented invention until the patent is actually invalidated, a process that could shut you down for years or lead to paying a massive settlement. But even that isn't true any more - US Supreme Court rulings this year have significantly reduced a patentholder's ability to get such an injunction.


Now, I am not an attorney. I am especially not a patent attorney. But, rabidchihauhau isn't either.


To the not-really-topic at hand....

Patents are not a problem for the paintball industry - they are a problem for almost every industry. Too many people have figured out how easy it is to get the USPTO to issue patents, and too many people are taking advantage of that to get patents issued that do not meet the legal requirements, and then using those patents to bully other companies that make useful products into paying licensing fees because it's just plain cheaper than the legal fight they'd have to engage in to get the patent invalidated.



- Chris

[Lenny]

W00t! W00t! I win!

Ha ha! I so called it back in '06! What did I tell ya'll.

http://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=200940&highlight=feedneck+patent

Rogue was dead on, too.

Go us!

/The whole ordeal is still stupid, though.
//But hey, I win!

[rabidchihauhau]

Raehl,

wtf is your problem?

Of course patents can be challenged and of course money has a lot to do with it.

I think the fact that I've gotten a bunch issued and was paid for writing them is some small indication that I do have a clue as to what they are all about.

You seem to be confusing the ability to prosecute a patent and enforce it (which takes lots of cash), with the validity of the patent itself.

[dave p]

shimano should sue em both. levers to lock collars have been on bicycles for how long?

this game and this industry has turned so freakin GAY its unbelievable. its a big Fn joke. im done until this industry finally burns itself to the ground. we will will see what comes up from the ashes.

[rabidchihauhau]

That's why, either in this or the thread on copyrights, I referenced the fact that the USPTO had decided to interpret paintball as a separate field of invention.

This is a determination that we fought with the PTO for quite some time - unsuccessfully. It isn't right that you can walk into a hardware store, adapt some existing technology and get a patent for it - but that's the way things are.

The PTO has determined that the requirements for inventing something for paintball are sufficiently different from other areas of invention that such adaptations deserve a patent.

My personal joke is that someday I'm going to submit an application for the "paintball paperclip" and see what happens...

[raehl]

Raehl,

wtf is your problem?

I was cranky and it had been a few years since I stirred your pot.


I do think the determination that "an already existing whatchamacallit adapted FOR PAINTBALL" as an unobvious invention may end up getting reevaluated in terms of obviousness in light of a lot of other court rulings going on recently. Seems the judicial is pretty bent on reigning in patent scope, as they well should be.

[RRfireblade]

shimano should sue em both. levers to lock collars have been on bicycles for how long?

Ernesto Colnago actually , Italian bicycle biulder . . . like in the 20's or 30's I believe.

The lever lock design actually goes back before the turn of the century tho , in other applications.

[rabidchihauhau]

Chris,

well, thanks for the attention.

You never responded to my email regarding the paintball wiki...

INteresting what you say regarding the judiciary, since that subject came up about two weeks ago in a discussion with attorneys.

The mess is quite a mess; so many conflicting patents have been granted at this point in time (just that class of thing - not even getting to the scope issues yet) that its going to be impossible to rectify in any kind of a fair manner. About the only solid solution we could all come up with (and it will never happen) is to void anything granted after a particular date and allow those who were issued patents to re-apply. Of course, that ignores all the follow-on stuff and opens its own can of worms.

Tough to sue the gov - but I can see class action suits in future when the solution is to recognize this guys patent but not that guys...

You start talking scope issues, its going to be a cascade, because if patent A get's knocked back, its going to affect patent B and so on down the chain; not to mention the folks who were faithfully paying royalties and now it turns out they shouldn't have been...

The day WILL come - probably not in our lifetimes - when a different system will be in place for all of IP. Cracks are appearing all over the place (URLs vs trademarks, people's given names as trademarks to name just a couple non-patent cracks that have already appeared.)

[KC]

I agree with the trying everything in the world to get a hopper to stay on the marker. in te early 90s my favorite was cutting a slit into the elbo, and using radiator hose clamps.

Now those were the days. Autocockers, mags and hose clamps.

[txaggie08]

I don't see hwo either will be granted a patent for technology that has been in production for several years prior to the filing of there patents, or is patent law a bit fuzzy?

[rabidchihauhau]

the filing for the PTP application is not after the introduction of the clamp; the filing took place in late 1999 or early 2000.