Re: [ATM] Patent: Apparatus and methods for focusing andcollimating telescopes

[<atm@hudler.org>]

Not really any chance here. They will spend a considerable amount in fees; they
paid $1902 just to file that one, then more PTO examiner fees then more attorney
fees. They will probably give up on the first rejection letter.

My Patent (6,990,660) came through the other day; we spent well over $250K for
that one.   
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/
netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6990660.WKU.&OS=PN/6990660&RS=PN/6990660


What they are really trying to patent is active optics. Good luck to them. LOL
They are in class 359 which is a pretty rough bunch of examiners.

If you want to see more details about the process for this patent go here;
 	
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair  select 'Publication Number' enter
'2006-0018012' then submit

You can watch the progression of the filing (which is like watching paint dry).

Jack

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce MacDonald [mailto:brumac@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2006 2:19 AM
To: atm@hudler.org
Subject: Re: [ATM] Patent: Apparatus and methods for focusing and collimating
telescopes

Can a patent really be granted on such a vague description?  I sure hope not.
If so, then no matter what mechanism you, I nor anyone else comes up
with it would be covered.  Is there no requirement that such an
invention actually WORKS?.
If a patent could be so granted, then innovation is slowly choked off,
since no-one could come up with such a device in real life, without
seeing the fruits of their labours being siphoned off by blood-sucking
lawyers of patent-holding companies, that add nothing to the process.

Gradually, as all the "good ideas" are covered by unrealised patents,
the incentive to realise them dwindles.

Sigh.

--BM


_______________________________________________
ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/