[ATM] flex produced optics and Patents 101

["Bill Kelley" <flex@commspeed.net>]

Sorry I missed this post and thus did not respond a few days ago. The old 
ATM mag refered to may have been my article on flexing a sphere in Sky & Tel 
of June 1992. Also, as mentioned below, Alan's stipulation that the puller 
be larger than 25% of the mirror diameter is based on this article 
describing a small center puller.
Bill Kelley

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "mbyorick" <mbyorick@starband.net>
To: <atm@atmlist.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: RE: [ATM] flex produced optics and Patents 101


> John asked:
>
>> > Alan, who controls the patents has ...
>>
>> Isn't this essentially the same thing that was described in an old atm
>> magazine? By someone who deformed his blank and polished in a sphere
> and
>> released the tension, revealing an off-axis section of a paraboloid?
> How
>> could someone come along later and patent it?
>
>
> The sole independent claim in the patent referenced above (U.S.
> 6,425,671 to Adler) reads:
>
> 1. A structure for holding and forming an optical mirror disc
> comprising;
>
> a puller attached to the back surface of the mirror engaging
> said mirror though an elastic layer over a region having an outside
> diameter of at least one fourth of the diameter of said mirror disc,
> a tensioner applying axial tension to the puller,
> a perimeter support engaging the perimeter of the mirror through
> an elastic layer and reacting said axial tension into an axial
> compression force acting on the perimeter of said mirror and flexing
> said mirror into a desired optical shape.
>
> Note that the claim is fairly specific about at least one aspect of the
> invention, namely, the puller being elastically attached to a
> (circular?) region of the mirror having an outside diameter at least
> one-fourth of the mirror's diameter.  The remainder of the claim is
> rather broad in scope, as far as mechanical claims are concerned (e.g.,
> any "desired optical shape").
>
> John does not describe the 'atm magazine' method with sufficient
> specificity to allow a determination of whether it qualifies as prior
> art with respect to the specific language of the claim at issue.  The
> question is whether the alluded-to magazine article describes a method
> or system which includes the claimed elements ('limitations') of a
> 'puller', a 'tensioner', AND the 'perimeter support'.
>
> However, if that "old atm magazine" article describes a system which
> falls within the ambit of the above claim language (or which is broader
> in scope), including each of the above-mentioned limitations, then the
> claim is arguably invalid.  Nevertheless, the patent is not
> automatically invalidated by the mere discovery of apparent prior art,
> and an invalidity determination based on prior art (including
> overbreadth) would require a decision from either the U.S. Patent Office
> (in a reexamination proceeding that will take up to 5 years to
> materialize), or from a Federal court in the form of a declaratory
> judgment.
>
> In the examination of the Adler patent, 14 previously issued patents
> were cited, which appears to be a reasonable number of patent
> references.  However, as in many, if not most, U.S. patent examinations,
> there were NO non-patent publications cited.  This deficiency accounts
> for most of the overly-broad, or just plain 'bogus' patents that
> continually get issued by the U.S. Patent Office, since most prior art
> exists in non-patent form.  However, apparently the inventor was not
> aware of (under oath), nor could the patent examiner find (in his
> limited search), any previously existing method or system that was
> sufficiently similar to what is described in the claim above.
>
> Furthermore, one cannot reasonably speculate that an unidentified
> magazine article invalidates any U.S. patent, absent some important
> specifics.  Finally, every U.S. patent automatically carries with it the
> <presumption of validity>.  Even with apparent prior art in hand, it
> ain't easy to get a patent invalidated!
>
> Mike Byorick
> In (relatively lawless) SW New Mexico
>
> _______________________________________________
> ATM mailing list http://www.atmlist.net/
>
> 


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