The PTP Choke.

[Lohman446]

So if PTP wanted to pull a SP they could sue AGD over the RT-Pro? I thought they were going for something that helped pull the trigger, not return it quickly.

Or SP over magnetic triggers?

[neppo1345]

Well...thanks for the education....
so is there another patent?...because if it's only what is under claims...a fully pneumatic trigger is not patented....

[phantomhitman]

i thought shockers/nerves/ions used spring returns. However, ebaldes fall under this as a means of firing but not operating the gun.

[Lohman446]

Well...thanks for the education....
so is there another patent?...because if it's only what is under claims...a fully pneumatic trigger is not patented....

Its claimed under an alternate under summary of invention - I think that pretty well covers it. I'm not a patent attorney, I suppose you could ask one as part of the investment into looking into building these.

[neppo1345]

..which is meaningless. Only what is covered in the CLAIMS is what makes something protected by a patent.

whos right?

[Lohman446]

whos right?

Nicad likely has far more knowledge than I do here.

[nicad]

What is protected in a patent is precisely what is claimed - no more and no less.

from: http://inventors.about.com/library/w...entclaimsa.htm
"Claims are the parts of a patent which define the boundaries of patent protection. Patent claims are the legal basis for your patent protection."

from: http://www.patentapplications.net/faq/faq10.html
"2) the claims which set forth in legal language what is patented."

from: (long URL)
"Patent claim or claims: These are detailed statements of exactly what your invention covers. Because the scope of your patent rights are based on what you declare in the claims, they are the most important section of the application."

and from: http://www.stor.buffalo.edu/invent_patent.shtml
"Claims are precise sentences that define the scope of patent coverage."

[Muzikman]

So nicad, this raises a question I don't want to ask.

[Nutsnyomowf]

This thread is making me sick to my stomach.Cant we just be thankful for the great markers we have.I mean before everyone was saying how AGD was ahead of there time and the Mags didnt need to improve because they was built right in the 1st place.Now you guys are whining over some bull5h!t.If you dont like how your Mag shoots,sell it buy a DMtoda100thpower or some other Glamorous marker if not just be happy with what you got.

[Lohman446]

http://www.benwiens.com/patents.html#patents.27]31[/url]. READING THE PATENT SUMMARY
While the patent background talks about problems with previous ideas, the summary describes the general concepts of the new invention. Compare the summary to the claims. It will soon become evident that while the claims are legalese descriptions of the invention, the summary uses more descriptive language to expand on the claims.

Indicates to me that one can claim the descriptions in the summary expand on the claims made. Don't know, I expect someone more qualified will chime in. But it seemed to me that AGD did not balk at the idea that PTPs patent was valid and they have rather extensive experience with the system.

[rabidchihauhau]

while it is true that the claims themselves are the 'heart' of a patent, the 'teachings' and the drawings and the findings and all of the other components are equally as valid, if not as popular as "the claims". Infringement cases have all been found to rest on decisions regarding all of the previously mentioned parts.

empty out your pm storage.

[RobAGD]

Sp uses 2 magnets to repel or return the trigger to forward stop point. ( with a little help from the spring of the switch ) - Shocker

Sp uses a magnet in the ion to return to battery as well, pulling on a set screw in the frame.

AGD used Magnets to return trigger to battery and for trigger signal

Eclipse uses a magent to return trigger to forward battery, and uses an optical sensor for shot acivation.


The problem is that in typical fashion someone pattened every idea they could think of for firing a paintball gun that wasnt currently being used.

Intresting to see if the Magnets in the Emag predate the patten claims.

As I recall there was previous art on that with a few people and bushmasters, intimidators, Shockers and a few others that were home grown.

-Robert

[nicad]

while it is true that the claims themselves are the 'heart' of a patent, the 'teachings' and the drawings and the findings and all of the other components are equally as valid, if not as popular as "the claims". Infringement cases have all been found to rest on decisions regarding all of the previously mentioned parts.

empty out your pm storage.

I requested a comment from my IP lawyer regarding this matter and he wrote:

"Merely talking about something in the application does not give any
protection. Only the claims give protection. In fact, after two years
the disclosure but unclaimed subject matter is considered to have been
dedicated to the public."


chihauhau- I don't use PM's on here. Please email if you need to contact me.

[11 Bravo]

How long does the patent last? There is a limit to how many years a patent can exist. Right?

[rabidchihauhau]

Your IP attorney is correct about unclaimed matter entering the public domain.

However, the question - which is only decided at court or through negotiations with another party, is: what in the summary is included in the claims and what is not.

Nicad - if you are contemplating any action regarding this IP, I would re-think that option. As your IP attorney can tell you, there are such things as 'continuations in part'.

Furthermore, these patents have the financial backing and wherewithal to deal with potential infringement and are being actively protected.

The claims in the patent went through nearly 4 years of review and refinement by the examiner, me, PTP and their IP attorney - they are not vague, they are not 'shotgun' to cover everything not covered, they were written to exploit a hole in the present art that had not been covered by any previous designs.

There is NO prior art. What you all think might be prior art are various components or similar looking concepts that either work in a different manner, do not 'really' work or are not the same thing when you take into consideration all of the other components of the design.

If you are careful with your dates, you will see that the so-called prior art is not prior.

Regardless of whatever anyone else may throw out there, regardless of any criticism of the claims writing, the teachings, the drawings and etc., issues of intellectual property have very little to do with what's on the paper and very much to do with who has the most dollars to defend their property. We've seen the nasty side of this from other companies who I will not mention. This IP comes from the other side of the fence - legitimate people and companies doing things the right way, employing patent law in the correct manner, navigating the process properly and then protecting what they have spent good money on. Attacking this IP because you can't get the product you want out of it is a mistake, plain and simple.