Smart Parts Patent Will Destroy Paintball! - Read!

[shawnellis]

Hi all, this is Shawn Ellis, owner of patent 5,727,538 for an "electronically actuated marking pellet projector". Someone's already posted the url to view it:

http://www.haveblue.org/tech/patents/US005727538.pdf

Kent contacted me and asked me to post to this board. I'm not sure if the smart parts product or suit plans infringe upon it, but I'm certainly willing to give my two cents worth to whomever I should be talking to.

Hope I can help!

Shawn

[TheTramp]

Welcome aboard.

Hopefuly your prior patent will sink Smart Part's attemps to inforce their newly expanded patent.

[luke]

Would you elaborate on who you are, and what your intentions are??
:)

[Doc Nickel]

I'd love to hear your side of the story, Shawn- any dealings with SP, the trials and tribulations of the patent process, anything like that- but the SP patent in contention was filed January of '96, which gives them (or so they hope) precedence over your April '96 filing.

Also, you might contact Larry Alexander at AKA (akalmp.com) and offer the data, as he's helping ICD during this suit.

Doc.

[akaindy]

Shawn please contact me.

Shawn please contact me as soon as possible. I deffiently need to talk to you. Doc got the name wrong its Aaron Alexander that needs to talk to you, thats me. Please call as soon as possible at 317-631-7200 during normal work hours.

Aaron Alexander
AKALMP, Inc.

[jinxed]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
but the SP patent in contention was filed January of '96, which gives them (or so they hope) precedence over your April '96 filing.

I thought the patent submitted by SP in Jan/1996 was REJECTED? (perhaps because of the Navy patent).
The earliest approved patent for SP was filed in Jan/1997, many months after the Ellis patent. Later SP "updates" refer back to the Jan/1996 submission, not the Jan/1997 one, so I don't know what impact that has on this mess.

For those that don't know Shawn Ellis might have patented an electro-pneumatic paintball gun BEFORE the Shocker, which would make Smart Parts lawsuit seem completely frivolous...

-Nick

[magman007]

I fore one would like to give Shawn ellis and AKAindy a warm AO welcome, and i would like to thank them for lending their efforts to thwarting smartparts and its evil empireistic take over of paintball. Thanks agian guys

[DiRTyBuNNy]

for some reason whenever someone mentions SP I always start to hear the Imperial March from Star Wars..

[Darkstorm]

Prototype gun

I do not know if you know this, but at EMR in PA there is a paintball museum now. I am guessing that they might be interested in your prototype for the museum that you have sitting in a box. Just a thought. Maybe not.

Hope it all works out for everyone. Best of luck.

[rabidchihauhau]

This is a response to Jinxed;

Several of the Smart Parts patents were issued as 'divisionals' of their original application. Divisional applications are dependant upon the INITIAL FILING DATE, which for these patents is January 15th, 1997.

The ISSUE date has little bearing on a determination of priority; the 'first in' (FILING DATE) basically takes it all.

Divisionals are expansions of the patent's claims, which are filed for PRIOR to the issuance of the initial application.

Additionally, what is looked at in terms of infringement issues are not broad concepts (like 'electronic paintball gun') but the SPECIFIC invention detailed by the CLAIMS listed in the application. While there are some complications that can affect that simple statement (prior art [a similar invention is already out in public view], similar ways or means [my invention uses a screw, yours uses a nail], etc) claims are what are tested to determine infringement - not drawings, not specifications, not history, not descriptions.

I think that this issue - while important - is being blown out of proportion - mostly due to ignorance about the patent process and what a patent is. Those who are interested in this subject, I suggest visiting the patent office web site - www.uspto.gov - and, depending upon circumstances, hiring a patent attorney.

[jdev]

Originally posted by DiRTyBuNNy
for some reason whenever someone mentions SP I always start to hear the Imperial March from Star Wars..

hahahaha.. *in darth vader voice*

[heavy breath]paintball... I am your father [heavy breath]

[jinxed]

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau


Additionally, what is looked at in terms of infringement issues are not broad concepts (like 'electronic paintball gun') but the SPECIFIC invention detailed by the CLAIMS listed in the application.

Your partially correct.
It -IS- the CLAIMS we are all talking about.
The CLAIM in the original shocker patent were very specific about a dual-solenoid, closed-bolt, spooled-valve, paintball gun.

The CLAIM in up updates is about a "electronic paintball gun". Very, very broad.
From the docket exerpts, it seems this difference is exactly what they are arguing.

nIck

[rabidchihauhau]

What you aren't realizing is that the "follow-on" patents are continuations of the original application and (except in special circumstances) enjoy the ORIGINAL filing date of the patent on which they are based.

Take all of the patents that refer to the 1/16/96 patent, roll all of the claims into one application and then pretend that everything WAS in the original application. At that point you'll have a better idea of how this works.

The argument with the patent office could be that they received an unwarranted EXPANSION of their claims in the continuations - but that kind of thing is exactly what the courts (and the PTO's internal 'court') are for determining.

I see nothing in the continuations that isn't related to a particular method of operating an electronically based paintball gun; the expansions seem to add things that are within the scope of their original application.

If you're going to argue 'too broad' - you're dealing with an attack on the PTO - not smart parts - and that's a big, expensive kettle of fish to boil.

People who are following this issue are missing another point; most of us are "those familiar with the art" - skilled and knowledgable about paintgun design and operation. The sense of 'too broad' may very well be an "educated" viewpoint and not one that would occur to those who are not as familiar as we are.

[rabidchihauhau]

Oh, and another thing: I wouldn't call something described as an

"electrically operated pneumatic flow distribution mechanism"

to be very specific. In fact, its nicely vague and broad and deliberately so.....

[jinxed]

Originally posted by rabidchihauhau
What you aren't realizing is that the "follow-on" patents are continuations of the original application and (except in special circumstances) enjoy the ORIGINAL filing date of the patent on which they are based.

I see what your saying. SP is purposely referring to the original rejected 1996 application, instead of the first accepted 1997 application SPECIFICALLY to elliminate the Ellis patent from prior art? Kind of a legal loophole in patent law?

I see nothing in the continuations that isn't related to a particular method of operating an electronically based paintball gun; the expansions seem to add things that are within the scope of their original application.

Well, I assume you've read the claims on the original patent claims, and here is the updated claim:
>A "Pneumatic Launching Device" with:
>1- A body with a trigger
>2- A bolt (or equivalent)
>3- A curcuit board that fires the gun

Thats very different from the original Shocker claim. Items 1 and 2 seem redundent, but my guess is they were added to remove the Navy patent from prior art.

If you're going to argue 'too broad' - you're dealing with an attack on the PTO - not smart parts - and that's a big, expensive kettle of fish to boil.

Bad patents get approved all the time. That doesnt make them valid. A chinese company recently won a patent for a stacked-tube blowback. This doesnt mean they can now force Kingman, and PMI to pay royalites. That would be crazy.

The sense of 'too broad' may very well be an "educated" viewpoint and not one that would occur to those who are not as familiar as we are.

I think thats what most people are worried about. However, the most recent court docket included a legal discussion about how many solenoids should be covered in the Shocker patent (2 in the original, "1 or more" in the update). So it would seem that the judges have enough of a technical background to understand what is going on.

Nick