RE: [ATM] More 'Patent 101' [was 'Too Small Optics-( and flexproducedoptics)']

["Richard Schwartz" <richas@earthlink.net>]

I would eliminate the adhesive that binds the puller to the glass.  The
adhesive is essential to Adler's invention, but can be eliminated when you
have a pusher.

Of course Adler's puller itself can be challenged.  It is obvious to one
skilled in the art of reading Roark's formulas that the deformation of a
disk under constant pressure goes as r^4, and that is exactly what you need
to change a sphere into a parabola (or other conic).

Adler is a very gifted guy of great achievement, but if he wants to take on
the ATM list, he will lose.   We can shoot his invention so full of holes
that his patent will be worthless.   Actually, it is already worthless
because ATM's don't have a lot of money to license Adler technology.

. . . Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: atm-bounces@atmlist.net [mailto:atm-bounces@atmlist.net] On Behalf Of
mbyorick
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 12:59 PM
To: atm@atmlist.net
Subject: RE: [ATM] More 'Patent 101' [was 'Too Small Optics-( and
flexproduced optics)']

There may additional patents in a related area, but I did not search for
them.  

You are right about the U.S. 6,425,671 patent as being limited to a
puller, and not covering a pusher.  However, any method or apparatus
nevertheless infringes a patent claim, if such method merely uses every
element of the claim at issue.  That is, a patent (claim) is still
infringed if one's system performs each step of a method claim, or if
one builds a device having each element of an apparatus (system) claim,
REGARDLESS of what additional steps or elements one might add to the
claimed process/system.  Therefore, merely adding a pushing device to
the elements already recited in claim 1 of the patent at hand, will not
avoid infringement of the patent.  On the other hand, omitting, or
significantly modifying a claim step or element will avoid infringement.


Finally, whoa(!) - yes, you <can> patent a method of flexing before or
after polishing (assuming, of course, that the method is novel and
sufficiently non-obvious).  In fact, a method claim can be directed to
the use of a system where none of the underlying apparatus is patented,
or even patentable (I write such claims all the time); one can patent,
for example, a method for swallowing a pill (and yes, such a method has
been patented).  There are literally millions of 'method' patents that
have been issued (all software patents are effectively method patents).

Mike Byorick

> 
> Mike dug around for us and turned up ONE patent (not plural). It deals
> specifically with a puller in the middle. Yet to do what was discussed
in
> the thread would require a pusher in the middle, puller on the
perimeter.
> Your patent claim does not address this, apparently, as your perimeter
> seems limited to compression.
> 
> Also, as Bob pointed out, you can't patent the idea of flexing before
or
> after polishing. You can only patent the specific device with which
you do
> the flexing.
> 
> So, are there more patents?
> 
> Or, just the one?
> 
> John

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

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