It seems that since this discussion was moved to a new thread, some of you boys have been ranting and insulting me behind my back with cowardice and malice. I guess I need to respond to them.
Not sure of what you mean there. But the video shows what it shows. That has been established already by others as well.
Insurgents, combatants, enemy, whatever. Let’s just call them bad guys.
Really? You don’t mean it’s like Vietnam all over again do you? For crying out loud. What’s wrong with them not wearing a uniform and such.
I think your 11 years of military service are honorable, but they don’t mean jack shiot in relation to what the video shows or the shiot claim about American soldiers.
Blame the US military then and don’t biotch at me, because that’s what they are calling them. My bet goes on them though. They have plenty of experience and never saw daddy’s training films.
Yea, it sounds like the booze again. Dude, you have a real problem if you drink that often. Seriously. When you start blathering angrily and incoherently like that, it’s obvious. I tried to be nice to you, then you come here and spittle your scotch breath like that at me, calling me nasty names and such.
Duty in 3 hours and you’re sloppy drunk again? Man, you have no business handling a government issued weapon. You need councelling. When you get over it, you will be able to discuss without going off the deep end like you do for no reason other than to make absurd statements. I didn’t want to put it to you like that, but someone needs to rile you. It might save your life.
And your mouth exceeds the speed of your brain. We established that some time ago.
Someone claimed the MPEG shows American troops firing wildly into a crowd, it does not, we’ve established that, and here you are with your finger in your nose, biotching about it still. The MPEG has nothing to do with military experience kiddo. Stiffle yourself.
Adhere to what your eyes see as well and stop letting your itchy desperation to biotch make you blather when the truth has already exposed. Stiffle yourself.
We have seen that there is an abundance of information available, and numerous reports from Amnesty International even which prove that the British military kills civilians by the dozen sometimes and makes all of the same mistakes that any other army might. And you read all that and still you support the fantasy that it’s all lies or dreamed up eh? You are not all in one piece. You are allowing your embaressment over it to overrun your sences.
…and insults and lots of more blather and plastic soldier games in the carpet.
You are ranting incoherently. Is that your idea of intellectual discussion? Good Lord. Have something to say if you are going to be such an azz as to insult someone.
Good Lord. Listen to all the frantic and hateful blather. And all because of jealousy over an invention. Damn boys, you could be more of a man than that. Don’t let such things get to you so much.
We have seen that there is an abundance of information available, and numerous reports from Amnesty International even which prove that the British military kills civilians by the dozen sometimes and makes all of the same mistakes that any other army might. And you read all that and still you support the fantasy that it’s all lies or dreamed up eh? You are not all in one piece. You are allowing your embaressment over it to overrun your sences.[/quote]
Perhaps your wording could be improved slightly. At the moment it appears that you accuse the British Army of killing civilians in quantities greater than 24 on more than one occasion. That can’t be what you are trying to say, because your source - the Amnesty Report - doesn’t support that point.
Back to the Amnesty report: Those are allegations. Not all of the incidents alleged either occurred, or represented unjustified firing on civilians. You also mentioned photos of British soldiers abusing Iraqis. Would you be so good as to provide links to these pictures. I’d suggest reproduction on this site is a bad thing as they are likely to be distasteful.
I can see why you’d feel picked on, but how on earth has anyone done it behind your back? It’s a forum which you frequent, on a thread where you have been very active. The malice aspect is debatable, but how is it either cowardly or behind your back? Should one pm you every time one responds to one of your posts to avoid these allegations?
Ironman the topic was moved on Friday the posts you are replying to where from last week and you had already replied . About face slow march through the thread, checking dates. I havent returned the neck winding spanner to stores yet would you care to borrow it.
Sure it does. Trying to twist the truth once more Crab?
No, they are incidents which have been investigated by Amnesty International and reported to the UN. Still trying to twist the truth Crab?
I said it has been reported that British soldiers have abused Iraqis, and Amnesty international has reported that too.
Because people start new threads specifically for that purpose. tapping Crab’s skull with a pencil. Think boy. Think.
Isn’t it truly typical and ridiculous how some of the British here blather that Americans are wreckless coboys with guns, yet the British military has made all of the same mistakes in Iraq (and I’m sure elsewhere). The self-reicheousness is absolutely sickening. Just accept it Crab, it’s no secret. What’s so bad about it? Shiot happens in war. So long as you realize that the British military shiots in war like other armies do.
Sorry to pick holes, but something new & non-obvious has to have been invented for it to be called an invention. It should also normally be an improvement over the existing technology, but that’s not compulsory. You claimed to have invented electrical ignition, you didn’t, you were shown & refused to admit error, thus you are a liar, and it’s that that’s offensive & gets us wound up.
BTW, ECLA classification F41A19/58 - /70 gives electric firing mechanisms (electromechanic as well as electric), and your thing would fit in F41A19/63 “…having means for contactless transmission of electric energy, e.g. by induction, by sparking gap”
And don’t worry, I have people who, in my professional capacity, tell me they’ve got an invention, I show them some prior art that proves them wrong, and then they usually FOAHP. They’re called “applicants”. A colleague of mine has applicants who come up with all kinds of cr@p that isn’t patentable (often because it goes outside the laws of physics & they can’t prove that it works, which is their responsibility in these cases, as well as being anticipated by the prior art).
Aah, yes, I was going to see if a piezoelectric spark would set off nitro powder. I shall have to remember to buy a piezo igniter from the hardware shop next time I’m there & try it. I’ll get one of those sparky thingies, fill the end with Vit N140 (a pretty standard rifle powder), hold it upwards, and spark it. It might go, it might not. I shall report the results.
It can’t be a part of another patent and it must be an advancement, just as the patent awarded in the year 2000 was for the primer which is electrically triggered by an electrode - the patent for my invention which was awarded to someone else who applied for it in the year 2000, as you have seen from the document from the US Patent Office. The other devices you carry on about are not specifically the same as an electrically triggered primer using an electrode, as is stated in the 2000 patent, and my description and illustrations of that very device from 8 years before.
I think you need to read that patent document again. You did not understand it. The description of the device which was awarded is PRECICELY the same as my illustration and description. There is no difference whatsoever. Do read it again. It seems that you did not.
It can’t be a part of another patent and it must be an advancement, just as the patent awarded in the year 2000 was for the primer which is electrically triggered by an electrode - the patent for my invention which was awarded to someone else who applied for it in the year 2000, as you have seen from the document from the US Patent Office. The other devices you carry on about are not specifically the same as an electrically triggered primer using an electrode, as is stated in the 2000 patent, and my description and illustrations of that very device from 8 years before.
I think you need to read that patent document again. You did not understand it. The description of the device which was awarded is PRECICELY the same as my illustration and description. There is no difference whatsoever. Do read it again. It seems that you did not.[/quote]
I’m sorry, I did give it a lot of consideration. Assessing patent applications is what I do for a living. You do not. Do not even think of trying to tell me what my job is when you haven’t a clue. Read this post again http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=5747#5747 it’s a nice idiot’s guide to patenting & has an analysis of the novelty of RA’s patent over your document.
Cos you’re not even going to read it again, the relevant bit is here:
Nothing after the word “comprising” on line 1 of RA’s claim 1 is in your document. The difference in claim 1 is the following:
an electrically conductive cup having a bottom and opposed side walls defining an internal chamber, said bottom including an aperture formed therein;
wherein the primer is sized so as to have a primer volume within a range of approximately 0.001 cubic inches to 0.010 cubic inches;
a conductive explosive material received within said internal chamber in an amount sufficient to initiate firing of the ammunition;
a contact positioned within said internal chamber adjacent said bottom of said cup in contact with said explosive material for actuating said explosive upon application of an electrical charge, said contact having a reduced thickness sufficient to enable a desired volume of explosive to be received within said internal chamber, wherein said contact has a thickness of between approximately 0.010 inches and approximately 0.030 inches;
an insulating liner received within said cup for separating said contact from said cup; and
a retaining means received within said cup for retaining said explosive material therein.
Now, if you can point out where those features in the quote box appear in your document (either explicitely or unambiguously derivably), then I will back down. Otherwise, FOAHP, if you’d be so kind.
The saddest thing in my view is that I kindly and sympathetically posted, and gave him patent numbers dating as far back as 1884, for him to see that his idea wasn’t new. He seemingly chose to not read these, and was a bit rude. Wasn’t having a go at him or anything. Any person not interested in creating pointless arguments would have said
“Wow. That’s interesting. 1884 eh! Wow. Isn’t it amazing the things they came up with back then!”
and been glad they had expanded their knowledge rather than exhibiting their ignorance and rudeness.
Bear in mind however, that the description above was written to describe the invention as it was concieved by the one who made the submission for a patent. It is not a description of anything the patent office concieved, and it is not an interpretation. It is an illustration using words to describe what has been submitted, only, and nothing more. Insignificant variations will occur between inventors who invent the same thing, such as dimensions, colors, etc. Someone who patents a self-bouncing ball which has a 30 cm motor will not recieve a patent if someone has already been granted a patent for a self-bouncing ball which has 20 cm motor.
The dimensions mentioned in the patent described above are irrelevent to the invention, and only describe it. The dimensions are not a part of the patent in the case of this invention, because the dimensions are not what separates this invention from others. If the invention were a microprocessor and the patent were for a new, smaller circuit within made of material that allows for a circuit to be made smaller than ever before, then the dimensions WOULD be a part of the invention. In this case, dimensions mean nothing whatsoever. Nothing at all. They are only a description of the submission sent to the patent office. For example, a patent applies and would have been granted for the device if the thickness of the conductor were 3 cm wide in a cartridge casing that it 100 cm wide, just as easily as the patent would apply to one which is millimeters in width in a casing that is 5 cm in width. But then, since you work in a patent office you surely understand that. If you now say that the dimensions involved are an actual part of the patent, and not a description of the inventor’s submission, you will have made it obvious that you do not work with patents for a living as you say that you do.
With that said…
Using the original illustrations I drew in 1992, and the descriptions in the patent that was granted for it in 2000:
BTW, my illustrations and description were for 6 variations of an electric firearm and 8 designs for the cartridge/primer. The above is only 1 of those. In fact, the design could have been made in many other ways, and I considered them too. But what is significant is the premesis of the device and it’s function, not whether the spark jumps the gap at the top or bottom of the primer, or whether the retainer completely covers the explosive material or if the anode protrudes from it, or whether the primer has a retaining flange at the top or is friction sealed, etc. None of that is actually relevant however, and none of those options are a part of the patent or of concern for whether or not the patend is grantable. A motorized self-bouncing ball is still a motorized self-bouncing ball, and whether it has a skin 7mm thick or 30mm thick has no effect on whether or not the motorized self-bouncing ball is a motorized self-bouncing ball.
As I have more than necessarily explained, the patent granted in 2000 is for precicely the device I invented, illustrated, and described in 1992. Had I sent the documents in, I would be the patent owner, and substancially wealthy, as it has been liscenced since. Obviously you gentlemen did not study the illustrations, but you certainly have expended a lot of energy to try to say that my invention was not the same as what a patent was granted for in 2000. All you would have had to do, Man of Stoat, is what you say that you do for a living; study the illustrations. But you did not. I hope you are doing better for others than you have for me.
You’ve just stealth-edited your original post to add those extra figures containing the wording of the RA claim. And a lot of your original things are now little “x” boxes. Nowhere in the original thing did you mention any explosive primer material at all. Nor was it implicit. This is getting quite tragic. You’ve even pointed to one of your electrical contacts (8) & now said that this electrical contact is a conductive explosive material :shock:
Please re-post your original, unedited specification, and illustrate where you explicitely mention a conductive explosive material. Hint - you didn’t.
And, btw, dimensions can be important in assessing inventive step - there can be an unexpected technical effect, or they can represent the optimum. I would wager that those dimensions represent the optimum solution for speed of ignition and reliability of ignition. We sometimes have discussions about this with applicants - if it’s the only distinguishing thing there, we tend to say it’s arbitrary, unless the applicant provides convincing arguments as to why it’s not. If it’s not the only distinguishing thing, we don’t worry about it & just leave it there, cos it limits the invention.
Stoat - an innocent question here (if such a thing is possible on this forum)
Is it normal for the technical documentation supporting a patent claim to be annotated with legal text? I would imagine that technical language would be prefereable on annotations to technical drawings as the drawing would specify what is referred to as ‘said cup’ ‘said contact’ etc far better than the word ‘said’.
On another note, why, when all the previously posted drawings were hand drawn and hand annotated are these new ones now annotated with un-aliased computer generated text?
I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean - you certainly can’t have explanations on figures, only reference signs. The language can be quite legalistic, and is usually “said cup”, “said intermediate wheel”, “said elastic element” to keep it as clear as possible.
For your 2nd note, it’s been quite the least subtle stealth-edit yet, and I’d be grateful if he’d re-post his unadulturated originals. Tell you what, if he posts the originals & writes a set of claims that he would have filed back in the 1980s, I’ll see if I can get my mate who works in that field to have a 10-minute look at it to see what he thinks.
I’ve just noted that the chronic “stealth edit” has gone right through the thread. Brilliant! Just like in 1984… Please restore it - stealth editing is of course against the site rules. <<edited to add this.
I would beg to differ since electrically primed cannon rounds had been in common usage for many decades. Dimensions are critical if you want to invent an electrically primed small arms round and claim a new patent on it, surely?
BTW, my illustrations and description were for 6 variations of an electric firearm and 8 designs for the cartridge/primer. The above is only 1 of those. In fact, the design could have been made in many other ways, and I considered them too. But what is significant is the premesis of the device and it’s function,
Oh really. Funny, because I demonstrated to you that this premise existed in 1884. So if that’s what’s significant in your invention…
not whether the spark jumps the gap at the top or bottom of the primer, or whether the retainer completely covers the explosive material or if the anode protrudes from it, or whether the primer has a retaining flange at the top or is friction sealed, etc. None of that is actually relevant however, and none of those options are a part of the patent or of concern for whether or not the patend is grantable. A motorized self-bouncing ball is still a motorized self-bouncing ball, and whether it has a skin 7mm thick or 30mm thick has no effect on whether or not the motorized self-bouncing ball is a motorized self-bouncing ball.
Excellent! In that case, I’m glad you agree that your patent is more similar to an 1884 than a 2000 patent. If the fine detail doesn’t matter as you claim (I presume you claim this because your invention lacks any), that’s the only conclusion one can draw, given that the electric firearm and cartridge were patented in 1884…
As I have more than necessarily explained, the patent granted in 2000 is for precicely the device I invented, illustrated, and described in 1992. Had I sent the documents in, I would be the patent owner, and substancially wealthy, as it has been liscenced since. Obviously you gentlemen did not study the illustrations,
I for one studied your invention in full, studied the supplied 2000 patent in full - not just the patent summary you outlined, but the drawings and the actual claims of their patent - the more one reads the more one realises that they’ve been granted a patent for something you were nowhere near… all you really had was the premise, and that was nearly a century old (more than, now). I also did a half-arsed patent search which showed a string of patents going back to 1884, and gave you the numbers. But you chose to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore them and instead were rude.
What is tragic is that you cannot even read a simple illustration that has arrows and accompanying text. Good Lord dude. Stealth edited? Are you drunk again? I think you are. Read the post. For crying out loud dude, read it before you blather! I stated that the drawings are accompanied by the text from the 2000 patent for comparison, to show that what a patent was granted for in 2000 is exactly what I illustrated, described, and submitted.
You do not work with patents for a living. That much is obvious now. Let me clue you in. If you apply for a patent for a 9m wide car tires, you do not have to state that the tires go on wheels. It is implied because all car tires go on wheels, unless you are applying for a patent for tires that somehow do not go on wheels. The same applies to a primer. You don’t have to state that the primer has explosive material in it, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT A PRIMER IS. THE PATENT APPLICATION IS NOT FOR PRIMER CAPS OR IGNITABLE MATERIAL. It is for the electonic method of detonating the primer with an insulated cathode through which an electrical current is passed. You are completely lost dude, or drunk again. You don’t know jack about patents and you certainly don’t work with them for a living.
The documents describe the process that I illustrated, not something that I did not illustrate. :roll:
You’ve even pointed to one of your electrical contacts (8) & now said that this electrical contact is a conductive explosive material :shock:
Dude, you can’t even read a simple drawing. Drawing no. 3 points to the electrical contact. Look at it and read the text when you are sober. Item 10 is the contact. :shock:
And, btw, dimensions can be important in assessing inventive step - there can be an unexpected technical effect, or they can represent the optimum. I would wager that those dimensions represent the optimum solution for speed of ignition and reliability of ignition. We sometimes have discussions about this with applicants - if it’s the only distinguishing thing there, we tend to say it’s arbitrary, unless the applicant provides convincing arguments as to why it’s not. If it’s not the only distinguishing thing, we don’t worry about it & just leave it there, cos it limits the invention.[/quote]
Bullhockey. You discuss nothing with anyone about patents. Measurements are not what is being patented. A process is. Measurements don’t mean a thing, and are not even required, Mr. Patent Office Pretender, as you have been informed. Furthermore, a working model is not required for a patent to be granted if you are patenting a process, and a working model is not required and was not sent with the patenet application which was granted in 2000 either. :lol:
Look at it again when you are sober dude. And please, stop telling people that you work with patents for a living. You have proven that to be a lie.
