On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:58:18 -0800, "LDosser" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:51:08 -0800, "LDosser" wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:00 -0600, (Robert
Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,
Mike Marlow wrote:
wrote:

Again - you can only patent a method.

Bull****.

So - are you suggesting you can patent the laws of physics?

Patents rarely specify the precise methodology employed to accomplish an
end.

They claim rights to "a method for .." accomplishing something.

If there _is_ existing competing technology, they have to spell out what
is 'different' about their approach -- that was *NOT* included in the
'a method for ..' claims of the prior patent(s).

If there is *NO* existing competing technology, and you have competently
drawn patent claims, the claim is for 'a method ...' doing the
heretofore
impossible. citing the inventor's implementation only as one example of
the claim. In _that_ situation, *any*other* approach to solving the
same
problem is simply a different means of doing the _same_thing_, and, as
such,
runs afoul of the original holder's patent that covers the basic idea of
doing _that_ thing.

A major goal of drafting patents is to make the claims as _broad_ and
_all-
encompassing_ as possible.

SawStop's patent(s), by 'virtue' of being the _first_of_its_kind_ are
very broad in scope. It will be 'difficult' (to put it mildly) to build
a competing technology that does _not_ involve: (1) 'a method for...'
detecting the approach of human anatomy to the blade, and/or (b) 'a
method
for ...' removing the blade from potential contact.

Exactly right.

Read up on patents. There is nothing
at all stopping another company from coming up with a similar, or a
different approach.

The patent is on the detection of the digit. There are only so many
ways to detect the presence of the digit before it comes in contact
with the works. That's the physics. There isn't another good way
and
if the patent attorney had any sense (it was his idea) he'd close off
all other avenues, as well.

He can patent the detection method only to the point of the device
design.
He can't patent the use of capacitance though.

WRONG.

If capacitance has never been used for that purpose previously, he _CAN_
patent 'the use of capacitance for that purpose'.

In fact, he's patented the use if *any* sensor for this purpose.


Prior Art: There exists all manner of machinery with sensors to keep human
appendages out of harms way.

...and payday is on Friday. So what?


Prior art makes it easier to break.

That is *not* prior art.