No. It only needs to be described in understandable terms.
Really? Then explain why a patent was granted for my invention, an electrically discharged primer with an electrode in it in the year 2000? I think you see the point. Dimensions are not required at all, unless the dimension is what is being patented or seperates it from previous patents, and in this case, it does not. What a patent was granted for in 2000 was the device itself, the process, not it’s dimensions. I did state that before actually. It might help you to read my posts in full.
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,
…but a patent was granted for it in the year 2000, as you have seen.
…but a patent was granted for it in the year 2000, as you have seen.
No. The patent text (see previous post) describes perfectly my illustrations. Sorry.
A very quick search in F42C19/12 (electric primers) gives (limited to pre-1920):
DE46455 1888.09.11
DE33599 1885.06.03
DE251177 1912.01.27
DE244986 1911.06.21
FR451316 1913.02.11
FR452444 1912.12.27
FR463619 1913.12.22
US1034160 1912.7.0
GB191206298 1912.07.04
GB105283 1917.04.12
GB128298 1919.06.26
DE323454 1920.07.21
Some use spark, some hot wire, some other methods.
…and the one that was granted in 2000 is for one within it’s own casing, with an electrode, using an electrical spark - precicely what I illustrated. :lol:
Did you look again and see that no. 10 is the electrode in the illustration and the text describes it? :shock:
I am willing to e-mail a mod from my work e-mail address to prove who I work for, if necessary.
Ironman, you edited your figures to incorporate the wording of the RA patent. It seems to only be you who thinks that you didn’t.
What are you not understanding here. My illustration is on the left. The text from the patent granted in 2000 is on the right. Are you still drunk?
See the electrode. It is 10, not item 8. Good Lord man. Please quite telling people you work with patents. You can’t even comprehend a simple line drawing and read.
The illustration there now is not the illustration which was there originally.
EDITED TO REMOVE THE KINDNESS I SHOWERED UPON MAN OF STOAT FOR CALLING ME A FACRICATING LIAR.
IRONMAN please edit your offensive post!!
Could you say what you have to say without insulting?
Now I’m convinced that you’re just taking the piss.
He has called me a liar and suggested that I have modified my drawings to suit the 2000 patent because he’s pissed and he has been exposed. It is highly offensive to me, as I am an extremely honest man. You’de be pissed too. I do not take kindly to anyone insinuating that I am such a man.
Man of Stoat, if you were a real man, you be happy for me, instead of making hogwash insinuations that I have altered my illustrations. You are a nagging, jealous, imature man. A very small man. And you are a liar. First you say you are in the military, now you say you work in a patent office. The next debate you will work in whatever field that discussion is about too I am sure.
I pity you. You mentioned that you have children. I hope you raise them to be better than you.
Enjoy looking at my electrical contact Stoat, NUMBER 10, not no. 8.
And better yourself while you are at it.
I have never said that I am in the military. If I had, you could provide a cite. I was, however, in the OTC, which is part of the Territoral Army. I don’t have any children either.
Are your fingers brown again, tinny?
(edited to add last 2 sentences)
He has called me a liar and suggested that I have modified my drawings to suit the 2000 patent because he’s pissed and he has been exposed. It is highly offensive to me, as I am an extremely honest man. You’de be pissed too. I do not take kindly to anyone insinuating that i am such a man.
Man of Stoat, if you were a real man, you be happy for me, instead of making hogwash insinuations that I have altered my illustrations. You are a nagging, jealous, imature man. A very small man.[/quote]
An extremely honest man would not make numerous edits without leaving a note to explain what has been edited and, where relevant, why. I’ve tried to PM you about one of these on the assumption that it is merely an oversight on your part, but you seem not to have received it.
Now you have an opportunity to demonstrate how honest you are by desisting from stealth editing entirely. As a gesture of goodwill you could even go back and annotate some of your previous (accidental, I’m sure) stealth edits to explain which changes have been made and why. This would make us even more likely to consider you to be an extremely honest man.
What you are is a cad. You have insulted my dignity by calling be a fabricating liar, and that bespeaks of your character. I have too much respect for myself to sell my dignity to try to convince anyone of anything. The illustrations remained in a briefcase for 13 years. I am not seeking attention from you or anyone. It was only a point of interest. If you don’t like it that I invented it 8 years before the 2000 patent, that’s your deal. I could care less. You’ve seen it, you see it now, and you don’t like it. Good for you.
But learn you this: Before you go about insulting another man’s honesty, be certain that you are correct. Because if you are not, you only reveal to others that you are willing to sell your character to imply someone els’s is reproachable. You have belittled yourself Stoat, not me. I know who I am and what I have done, and you know also that you intentionally accused me falsely to further your imature inability to accept that someone has done something that you did not.
Truly, I am not cut from the same cloth as you Sir.
EDITED TO CORRECT TYPOS
IRONMAN, I havent seen exactly what has been happening so im not going to accuse you of anything. However, I would say people are going to closely monitor your posts and edits in the future. You have brought this on yourself IMO. So take this as an informal warning that you are treading on thin ice.
IRONMAN I will say this if you edit one more of your posts without clearly stating what you have changed you will be issued your 2nd formal warning.
…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.
Sweet baby jesus and the orphans, it’s a bit off fun you numpty. That is why this is OFF TOPIC and i was fair i also included a story about Brits.
I have not edited a post before someone posted anything after it that I am aware of. Therefore, please retract your warnings, as I do not think they should apply.
I have not brought anything upon myself. I was accused of fabricaing drawings to suite the text of a patent issued in the year 2000, which is perposterous. It was Stoat’s last ditch attempt to try to discredit the invention when he ran out of substanciable grounds.
Any editing of posts that I have done has been done, to my knowledge, before anyone has posted anything. However, in the future, if I edit a past, even before someone else posts after it if you like.
Edited to correct the above sentence and add the next:
In the future I will add a notation if I edit a post, even if it is just to correct typos.
Last edited by IRONMAN on Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:39 am; edited 14 times in total
:shock:
I am not a good typist. I try to correct my typos. :shock:
However, you still owe me the most sincere apology for implying that I modified my drawings to falsify the information of them.
[quote=“IRONMAN”]
I am not a good typist. I try to correct my typos. :shock:
However, you still owe me the most sincere apology for implying that I modified my drawings to falsify the information of them.[/quote]
I don’t owe you any apology, since you did, and oh look! There’s a thread with a poll on it & people are backing me up! Must be some kind of mass-hallucination :roll:
Right. Back to searching (Today, Matthew, I wil mostly be searching g04b19/06, /06b, /10, /10b, /12 and G04d3/00b14c)