Oh my Gosh...someone got SP darn good..

[Jackel411]

Newmagman21.. Taken directly to the email sent out to the industry and stores...



Now from what I heard from through my connections and lines , is that this isnt going to bode to well with the kiddies.. Trust me even if they change one thong to get past it , SP guns may be looked upon as being a white elephant.

Ive seen this happen before in the WGP vs. AKA lawsuit ,

[OmniM]

This wont touch SP a bit...sadly...

... they will just lock the chips.

... but if you change the ROf or Dwell or sth like that, are you re-programming?

[Jackel411]

Kinda sorta yes..

[rabidchihauhau]

Slarty and others:

you're forgetting about 'field of invention' when you all spout off about things like 'they don't deserve it', 'this kind of thing has been used for years by computers, etc'.

The field of invention in this case is firearms (class 24) - not computers (or anything else). The linking, reprogrammability and etc - as applied to pneumatic projectile launching devices - IS unique and WDP has laid claim to all of that - and gotten it.

Is it obvious that once you have a chip in a paintball gun that you could re-program that chip from an external device? Yes, probably. However, the METHOD for accomplishing that, within the unique environment of paintball guns, is not obvious, and therefore patentable.

Muzikman,

the '814 patent starts with claim 1 which says:

A paintball gun (having)
communication with a remote terminal
an input
a pneumatic system for firing a paintball (that communicates with the input)

and so forth

the key here is that the gun has certain functionality that is covered by the patent as well as the remote terminal, programmability stuff.

In other words, if you combine a pneumatic launching device with the chip/remote terminal/programmability, you are infringing.

[MindJob]

Hopefully, all of this BS and the cost involved to pursue all of these lawsuits will come to an end on their own. Smart Parts and WDP cant keep suing one another into oblivion. I bet soon this will all just come to an end.

[SlartyBartFast]

you're forgetting about 'field of invention' when you all spout off about things like 'they don't deserve it', 'this kind of thing has been used for years by computers, etc'.

The field of invention in this case is firearms (class 24) - not computers (or anything else). The linking, reprogrammability and etc - as applied to pneumatic projectile launching devices - IS unique and WDP has laid claim to all of that - and gotten it.

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/contact_list.asp

[Skoad]

can we dance yet?

[Paint-Fool]

No no not just yet...we need to wait a while before dancing. I should have kept my piece of junk impulse I would have set it on fire and danced around it.

[hitech]

http://www.atmel.com/dyn/general/contact_list.asp

So, did you do this? I'd be very interested in hearing their responce.

And, thank you, again, for saving me all that typing time. I couldn't have possibly said all that any better.

[SlartyBartFast]

So, did you do this? I'd be very interested in hearing their responce.

Not yet. I'm recovering from writing that last post.

When i get a reply you can be assured I'll post it here.

And, thank you, again, for saving me all that typing time. I couldn't have possibly said all that any better.

Thanks for the compliment. And I think I'll have that beer before I do any more...

[rabidchihauhau]

The specification of a patent application lays out (or should) the territory that is being addressed by the invention.

The broadness of the claims (ie, any method available within the electro-magnetic spectrum for transmitting a signal between a transmitter and a receiver) is defined well enough (electro-magnetic) that its valid. They didn't claim 'any transmission medium that will ever be invented. They specificed it. The examiner gave it to them.

The fact that programming protocols exist does not in any way affect the claims - wdp only has their claims within the scope defined by the patent - generally, pneumatic projectile launching device, specifically, a pneumaticlly operated gun that fires frangible projectiles, even more specifically, a paintball gun.

The Rice patents are paragons of specificity when compared to some of the claims in SP patents. More than once I've seen the phrase "a means for" in one of their apps. THAT could literally cover everything anyone ever thinks up.

Any patent attorney will tell you that you must write your claims as broadly as possible. IE

A game involving two teams of 1 or more players
the game of claim one that has a time limit
the game of claime one that has a scoring system
the game of claim one that has an objective

a game involve two teams of 1 or more players that has a time limit of between 3 and 15 minutes
the game of claim x where the scoring system is based on how many players have been tagged

etc., etc

its up to the PTO to determine how broad they're going to allow it to be.

Is there a lack of understanding on the part of the PTO about our field of invention? yes.

Are the WDP patents too broad - no. You want to make a pneumatic launching device that shoots cabbages and that has programmability - go right ahead; there are enough engineering problems to be solved in going to a larger, less uniform, more vegetably projectile that I'm sure you could get a patent issued.

[SlartyBartFast]

Are the WDP patents too broad - no.

Says who? Granted WDP was a little less wide ranging than SP. We'll see what Atmel has to say...

Can anyone find any patent covering basic display functions and use of electronic components in any other industry?

Now reading the 814 patent, the only issue seems to be in the claims:

[/url]http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%226%2C615%2C814%22&OS=%226,615,814%22&RS=%226,615,814%22[/url]
1. A paintball gun including a data link for transferring data to and/or from a remote terminal.
2. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data link provides a wired connection to a remote terminal.
3. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data link provides a wireless connection to a remote terminal.
4. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 3, wherein the connection uses radio waves.
5. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 3, wherein the connection uses infrared radiation.
6. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the data link comprises means for transferring data to and/or from a remote data carrier.
7. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gun does not have an integral display.
8. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, wherein the gun has an integral display.
9. A paintball gun as claimed in claim 1, having a display which is removably connected to the gun.
10. Electronic apparatus, comprising a paintball gun, a terminal and means for transferring data and/or communicating between the gun and terminal.
11. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the data transfer means uses a wire connection.
12. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the data transfer means uses a wireless connection.
13. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the data transfer means uses a removable data carrier.
14. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the gun has an integral display.
15. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the gun does not have an integral display.
16. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the gun has a display which is removably connected to it.
17. Apparatus as claimed in claim 10, wherein the terminal is selected from the group comprising: a computer; a hand-held device; a wearable device; a gun component; a gas regulator; or a component mounted on a gun or gas regulator.
18. A paintball gun having a detachable display.
19. A gas regulator including means for transferring data to and/or from a remote terminal.

The Rice patents are paragons of specificity when compared to some of the claims in SP patents. More than once I've seen the phrase "a means for" in one of their apps. THAT could literally cover everything anyone ever thinks up.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...y=PN%2F6003504http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...S="fault+code"

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=41&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1='fault+code'&OS="fault+code"&RS="fault+code"

That one seems to claim that sticking standard maintenance data into a database is worthy of a patent.

[AGDlover]

i say AGD should go in for the kill and kill SP for magnets.....SP's guns have magnets right?

[Muzikman]

That is not true. I currently have a patent pending and have had to make quite a few changes to it so that it can get pushed through. I am at the point now where it's probably not worth any more of my money to try.

Any patent attorney will tell you that you must write your claims as broadly as possible. IE

A game involving two teams of 1 or more players
the game of claim one that has a time limit
the game of claime one that has a scoring system
the game of claim one that has an objective

a game involve two teams of 1 or more players that has a time limit of between 3 and 15 minutes
the game of claim x where the scoring system is based on how many players have been tagged

etc., etc

its up to the PTO to determine how broad they're going to allow it to be.

Is there a lack of understanding on the part of the PTO about our field of invention? yes.

Are the WDP patents too broad - no. You want to make a pneumatic launching device that shoots cabbages and that has programmability - go right ahead; there are enough engineering problems to be solved in going to a larger, less uniform, more vegetably projectile that I'm sure you could get a patent issued.

[phantomhitman]

this does nto hurt sp in anyway except for the $100k slap on the wrist. from what info is posted sp has already annoucned they have stoppped shipping their guns with the reprogramable boards and fixed the problem. within a few weeks sp will be back in full throttle with stock boards in their guns.