Actually, Earl, it does have to actually work. It must have utility, and to have that, it must work. It doesn't have to work better, but it must work. The examiners do care about this, and will reject it for lacking utility if it doe not work. Usually, whether it works or not is rather obvious on its face, so no further proof is required. However, if the applicant attempts to patent something that, for example, defies the laws of physics, the examiner will reject it if he recognizes that fact, or questions it. He then requires proof of operability from the inventor.
Last edited:
Hopefully, you work for the USPTO and can straighten us all out on this. I don't, but feel strongly the office should not be wasting time and money reviewing useless ideas. OTOH, I understand that any idea will prove itself worthy or unworthy in the marketplace.
General Information Concerning Patents
Sorry, I've sidetracked this thread a bit by ranting about the patent process.
Define "useless".
How much time and money should be spent on proving something is useless?
How much effort should be required to prove, for example, that a door hinge actually works?
Useless = something that isn't useful or doesn't provide the claimed utility.
One end of the spectrum lies the perpetual motion machine. If someone files a patent for one, the USPTO themselves say they'd like to see a working model.
The other end of the spectrum are self-evident ideas like the door hinge. Anyone with reasonable intellect (e.g. an patent examiner) could tell from the drawings it will work. No test data or working models needed here.
In between are things like Dr. Geddes' AL. If it doesn't work as some who've posted here claim, I'd judge that as useless because it won't provide the audio enhancements he claims.
Comments such as "If it doesn't...as some have posted..." is a useless way to debate as it provides nothing to further the debate and is simply argumentative. That "some have posted" is empty rhetoric, anyone may post anything whether factual or not. In that regard, I judge your comment above as useless.
dlr
A patent is only useless if it protects something that doesn't make it into an actual product. If you want to complain about each and every "useless" patent that has ever been granted then you will have a lot to complain.
The real question is: does the acoustic lever work (sreten says "no" although he didn't explain why - Earl and John say "yes" and they explained why) and what are the benefits in a practical application? I don't see any.
Best, Markus
Geddes said that the drawback would be the very limited bandwidth
That to me seem to be the only real advantage
But ofcourse there are other ways to achieve that
As there are other ways to achieve the claimed "gain" advantage
With another set of compromises
No pain, no gain
Last edited:
OK, you've now defined opposite extremes. Now define the dividing line in the middle with sufficient clarity that EVERYONE would know what "useless" is such that it could be upheld in court.
Patent law requires utility. Do you have ANY doubt that Geddes device cannot utter a sound?? I haven't read the claims, so I don't want to comment any further. But if you think it would cost the USPTO less money to have examiners spend their time requiring proof to suit your wishes, well ...
I, as well, don't particularly see any piratical application. The idea boils down to making a BP woofer using a given driver more efficient. On the other hand, if you want higher efficiency there are a lot of simpler ways to get it. The AL trades increased efficiency against complexity.
Speaking of pirates: maybe Ford had bought 5 million wrong drivers and someone had to make them work - voilà, the acoustic lever was born.
Best, Markus
Like I wrote: 'anyone with reasonable intellect'........
With regard to Geddes' patent, I have already written I have NO opinion one way or the other on it. I'll leave that to sreten, john, Dr. Geddes and others to thrash out.
Thanks, I think my point was more that the USPTO is not going to go about defing if something works as claimed or not. If its obvious sure, but the acoustic Lever is a case in point. Its not obviuos if it will work as claimed or not and the examiner never questioned that aspect. All he looked at was the claims and if the were new.
As to the practicality of the lever, those are all debatable points. "if you want higher efficiency there are a lot of simpler ways to get it" - thats not obvious either and I might even question that its true. In the end the lever as a "part" is trivial to make and the rest is just a box. How can you get twice the output any simpler than that? Two drivers? Sure, that may be simpler but its a heck of a lot more expensive. It all comes down to what you are trying to do. It beats the heck out of using a horn for more efficiency that much is certain.
When do you start selling acoustic lever boxes?
When I get far enough ahead to have the lever made. Without that part you have nothing and that part does not exist. Cobbled parts don't work very well - been there, done that - so I am waiting to have the lever made right so that I know that the final product will be "practical". Its a cheap part in volume, but its also a unioque part and takes tooling and if you have been follwing my speakers development you will realize that tooling is the roadblock to almost everything.
I've built probably a half dozen designs in the past and I know precisely what I need and would do, but do I have a drawing and timing for release? No
Guys, to be patentable, and invention has to have three attributes. It must be useful, novel, and non-obvious.
Useful; To meet the "useful" requirement, all that required is to make a plausible case as to how it might be used. Whether or not it is economically feasible at present, or worth the effort is not part of the requirement. Those are value judgments, and the patent office is not in the business of judging an invention's possible value or ultimate practicality. It cannot defy the laws of physics (perpetual motion machine). Nor can it be illegal (a new method for stealing, for instance).
Novel; Well, it hasn't been done before or described before.
Non-obvious; This one is the trickiest. Everything is obvious if you have all the information in front of you and know the outcome. But often there is also contradictory information, before the outcome is known. That something is worth trying, does not make it obvious in the patent sense. It has to be obvious to someone with skill in the art that the invention would work, without any undue experimental effort.
BTW, patents don't give the holder the right to practice the invention - only the right to prevent others from doing so.
Sheldon
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.