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

[RogueFactor]

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

Ive read the PTP Patent(6,591,824) for the collet feedneck, which I havent found uses a 'clamp', but a collet. Distinctly different.

I must have missed the claim claiming a 'clamp' in Patent 6,591,824. With you being more familiar with the patent you filed in 1999/2000, and having been a part of writing it, can you list that claim # in the original patent claiming a clamp(one that isnt externally threaded and uses a collet)?

Please refrain from referring to the current Application, which was not filed in 1999/2000. It may claim Priority(if granted), but was not filed in 1999/2000.

[rabidchihauhau]

Rogue,

I can refrain from referring to the original application all you want, but your request does not change the fact that when the most recent application issues, it will have the same priority date as the original filing.


6,591,824 WAS filed in 2000. Here it is.

The present application is based on and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/200,143 filed on Apr. 27, 2000.

Lever patent priority dates - then see above:
This application hereby claims priority to and is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/617,913, filed on Jul. 11, 2003, which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/842,351, filed Apr. 25, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,591,824.

You want to change the rules at the PTO, you're welcome to try...

As for the claims for levers - they look pretty straight forward to me.

If you'll go and read the section on provisional applications at the PTO site, you will find that so long as you follow it up with a formal app within a year, it is considered the original filing date for your application, confers the same protection as any application in process and entitles you to say "patent pending" on your invention.

[hitech]

That threaded hopper concept is not that bad of an idea.

It has technically already been done, my original phantom had a threaded feel neck...

[rabidchihauhau]

once again, you guys are mixing up what you've seen, ideas and what has been granted in a patent application.

I don't know if this example will help, but I'll give it a try:

a company invented some new circuitry for car radios - something to do with the fidelity of the sound reproduced.

Radio existed well prior to this invention. The idea of wireless transmission of signals probably followed the invention of the telegraph by about 3 seconds...

So these guys get a patent for their new circuit. One of their claims is the use of a resistor in part of the circuit that's key to both making their invention work and to their patent application.

They get a grant. One of their competitors de-engineers their device and comes up with an elegant work-around. They place a lightbulb in the circuit instead of a resistor.

Now, this story may be apocryphal, and exactly why their lightbulb wasn't stopped cold by the 'different means, same functionality' test I'm not sure, but it does serve to illustrate that a particular design can be given a patent even though something similar existed before and that even when someone has a patent, their rights only extend to the device that is described in the application - not the whole idea.

So whether or not your feedneck had threads on it (it did, I'm just saying) has no bearing on the prior art business if a locking system of some kind improves on that and is sufficiently different to warrant getting a patent grant.

The number of improvement patents are legendary.

[hitech]

So whether or not your feedneck had threads on it (it did, I'm just saying) has no bearing on the prior art business if a locking system of some kind improves on that and is sufficiently different to warrant getting a patent grant.

Hey, I don't know if that was because of my comment or not, but... I wasn't claiming prior art. Only that the idea of a threaded "hopper" wasn't very new.

Carry on. These patent/copyright threads are the most interesting thing I've read here in a LONG while.

[RogueFactor]

Rogue,

I can refrain from referring to the original application all you want, but your request does not change the fact that when the most recent application issues, it will have the same priority date as the original filing.

Sure, thats fair. Just show me in the original patent where it claims a clamp. The one that was filed in 1999/2000, as you stated.

I am familiar with how Priority works. Still doesnt change the fact as to when the current Application(linked in the first post) was actually filed---which wasnt in 1999/2000.

[rabidchihauhau]

hitech,

not exactly, but it did give me a chance to address the issue.

Rogue - I'm not playing your game. You go and nitpick at some little issue and try to turn it into a molehill. Then, when you don't get the answer you're looking for, you pick at it like a scab.

The initial application was filed as a provisional in April of 2000. No matter how much you may not like that fact, its a fact, you can't change it by denying it and I am under no obligation to agree with you - especially when you're incorrect.

As for claims analysis - if you're looking for something to challenge, I sure as heck am not going to be the one to help you out. That's not the job of the patent holder, nor the job of someone who worked for the patent holder.

You want to try to spin my refusal to assist you into some big deal about having something to hide, or making it look like that affects the nature of the patent or anything else like that, go ahead, but it will fly in the face of the hard fact that pro-team has been issued two patents on this design already and will be receiving a third one shortly. You can talk all day about what should or should not have been issued, or what the claims in a given patent cover or what they don't, or how someone might be able to challenge a patent - BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because the patent has been issued and those things are not going to be resolved here on this forum.

[nathanjones008]

hitech,(quote)

not exactly, but it did give me a chance to address the issue.

Rogue - I'm not playing your game. You go and nitpick at some little issue and try to turn it into a molehill. Then, when you don't get the answer you're looking for, you pick at it like a scab.

The initial application was filed as a provisional in April of 2000. No matter how much you may not like that fact, its a fact, you can't change it by denying it and I am under no obligation to agree with you - especially when you're incorrect.

As for claims analysis - if you're looking for something to challenge, I sure as heck am not going to be the one to help you out. That's not the job of the patent holder, nor the job of someone who worked for the patent holder.

You want to try to spin my refusal to assist you into some big deal about having something to hide, or making it look like that affects the nature of the patent or anything else like that, go ahead, but it will fly in the face of the hard fact that pro-team has been issued two patents on this design already and will be receiving a third one shortly. You can talk all day about what should or should not have been issued, or what the claims in a given patent cover or what they don't, or how someone might be able to challenge a patent - BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER because the patent has been issued and those things are not going to be resolved here on this forum.(unquote)
I feel the love in this house

[RogueFactor]

Rogue - I'm not playing your game. You go and nitpick at some little issue and try to turn it into a molehill. Then, when you don't get the answer you're looking for, you pick at it like a scab.

Go convince someone else that Priority Date and Filing Date are the same. That turd floats the bowl. And attempting to confuse the reader that the Priority and Filing Date are the same is your goal. SPIN SPIN SPIN!

There is a legal difference, and a party contesting a patent can use this difference.

I think raehl stated it best...

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

[Furby]

Like we care what Raehl says?

Sorry Chris, couldn't resist...

[raehl]

Like we care what Raehl says?

That's probably not an entirely bad perspective to take....

A priority date is the effective date for evaluating whether prior art invalidates a patent or patent application.

However, the purpose of a priority date is not generally to provide protection to two patent applications in the same country, but is instead designed to give a priority date to an application in, say, France, base on when that application was filed in the US. But a similar concept is the basis for provisional patent applications in the US.

In either case, the ORIGINAL application must describe the actual invention claimed in the later application if it is to be used as a basis for claiming an earlier priority date than the application date of the subsequent application.

So, whether an application for a collet can give an earlier priority date to an application for a clamp depends on the determination of the patent office, followed by the determination of any later judicial proceeding where the guy who filed his own clamp application between the collet application and the follow-on clamp application claiming priority sues the guy trying to shanaggle an earlier filing date by claiming priority on a potentially non-qualifying earlier patent application.


The key is, the first application has to claim THE SAME INVENTION as the second application, or it doesn't count, and sliding it by the patent office is just postponing the patent getting invalidated in court later.

Only a year ago, you might not care, as you still might get significant profit by enforcing your not-really-valid patent through threat of injunction, but that gravy train seems to have come to an end.


So, it seems pretty clear to me here that one of the following things is true:

- The application for the collet covers clamps, and the second application is frivilous.
- The application for the collet doesn't cover clamps, in which case the clamp is a different invention, and you can't use an application for a collet to get an earlier priority date for an application for a clamp if the invention is different.

But, in the interests of full disclosure, I don't even know what a collet is, so YMMV.

- Chris

[raehl]

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

I have 2,661 emails I have not responded to. Assuming yours is in 'the pile', I'll get to it some day. It's also quite possible it got lost in the spam folder so if it was important try sending it to me again.

- Chris

[rabidchihauhau]

original patent application has its own filing date as its priority date. A continuation application benefits from the filing date of a "parent" application, which may be an original application or may be another continuation application claiming priority from the original application.

A particular type of original patent application is the "provisional" patent application. A provisional application may only be an original patent application because it cannot be a continuation or continuation-in-part application based on a previously filed application. Its use is limited solely to being a parent application to a later-filed continuation application."

[Maghog]

Man, this is REALLY sad.
Poor paintball.

[rabidchihauhau]

Ultimately, these things straighten out. Its not sad for paintball - its actually accomplished its goal by spurring innovation and invention. Now, instead of one locking feedneck, we've got about half a dozrn different ways to do it.