The 1996 patent wasn't abandoned: it was granted as patent number 6,035,843 - issued on 03/14/2000.
The serial number on the patent is what you need to look at for filing history. It is referred to as 'now abandoned' in two of the 'continuations in part', and as an issued patent in the third one.
Its interesting that it issued AFTER one of the continuations - but that has no bearing on the initial filing date of january 96 - that still holds sway.
I haven't re-read Ellis recently (will be doing so) - but I seem to remember it as being both way too broad and as a specific schematic for doing electronic control in one specific fashion. I suspect that Ellis had to reduce his claims before it would grant and that the description covers what he really wanted (broad claims covering any form of electronic control of a paintball gun) while the actual claims are what the PO would allow.
I think its basically useless to argue the merits of various electronic gun patents here in this forum: we're at that stage in the development of things where any determination is going to require a finding in court. Smart Parts is entitled (obligated) to protect their property - just as other manufacturers are obligated to protect theirs.
The serial number on the patent is what you need to look at for filing history. It is referred to as 'now abandoned' in two of the 'continuations in part', and as an issued patent in the third one.
Its interesting that it issued AFTER one of the continuations - but that has no bearing on the initial filing date of january 96 - that still holds sway.
I haven't re-read Ellis recently (will be doing so) - but I seem to remember it as being both way too broad and as a specific schematic for doing electronic control in one specific fashion. I suspect that Ellis had to reduce his claims before it would grant and that the description covers what he really wanted (broad claims covering any form of electronic control of a paintball gun) while the actual claims are what the PO would allow.
I think its basically useless to argue the merits of various electronic gun patents here in this forum: we're at that stage in the development of things where any determination is going to require a finding in court. Smart Parts is entitled (obligated) to protect their property - just as other manufacturers are obligated to protect theirs.
Comment