Marking Gauge Patent (Long Winded)

[Johnny Kleso]

I was searhing the web for marking gauge designs and found what I think it a Marking Gaue Patent

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7269906/fulltext.html

Being a machinist all my life including four years of machine shop classes when young it amazes me what people will patent..

The Company wanted a patent so they could be the only maker and hired a Lawyer who submittes patent and the patent office grants them..


I see nothing more than a 75 year old Stanley #98 I think is the number with a scratch pin and wheel cutter and a adjusting screw a little different than a 150 year old Stanley wooden #77 mortice gauge pretty much..

A screw that adjustes the depth!!!!

Seems like the patent office just gives out a patent if you write enough claims so their head startes spinning..

You would almost believe they invented the marking gauge from the way the lawyer writes...

I guess its the years I worked as a Model Maker..
At one time every patent needed to have a model as there was no standards to making blue prints untill WWII

I think they where lucky I was not the patent inspector :)

Sorry for the rant I just had to get it out ..


The above has been edited for content by me
Turns out The Company is Lee Valley the patent owner..

http://www.patentgenius.com/assignee/LeeValleyToolsLtd.html
Rob's other patents

[Joel Moskowitz]

This is NOT a tite-mark patent - it is owned by Lee Valley and has nothing to do with Tite-Mark

[Johnny Kleso]

Turns out it should read Rob Lee (LV) not Glenn Drake (Tite Mark)

The tool tool are very close to the same tool other than LV has a Collet Lock not a Set Screw

So I guess if you want a Collect Lock Rob has it patented ???

I dont get it.. He didn't invent the collect , it might be a few hunred years old but a Set Screw lock or a wedge lock OK

I see most of Rob's patents are for "The ornamental design."

I always considered a Patent for an Invention that sounds more like a Trade Mark...

Sorry I just had to vent...

[John Schreiber]

I think that patent law is a world unto itself where the kind of logic we understand does not apply.

[Rob Luter]

Patents are all about novelty. Rob Lee may not have invented the collet, but was apparently the first to recognize that using it on a marking gauge amounted to a novel application that resulted in a measurable improvement to the device. The inspector looked at prior art (see references cited) and determined that the claims presented were legitimate.

I am a little surprised at the breadth of the independent claims that were allowed, but I've seen that before. It doesn't mean that the allowed claims are necessarily able to be defended, especially if prior art the examiner didn't see can be presented. It's also no guarantee that the patent can't be beaten, or "designed around" as we call it in the business. All that it really guarantees is that no one in the US or Canada can knock him off with a cheap copy without running the risk of getting sued.

Patents are an interesting field. I get to deal with the patent attorneys a fair bit as part of my job. It seems you can patent about anything if you were the first person to think of it and can afford the legal bills. This includes combining pre-existing devices to make a new and improved version of some other device. Case in point, a collet to lock the head of a marking gauge instead of a wedge or a screw.

[Steve Hamlin]

Given the vast array of innovations that might be patented, I can't imagine patent offices dig too deeply before granting the patent.
Some are truly disgraceful, but stand unless someone has the gumption and the funds to risk contesting it.
As a maker, it's worth filing because you'll probably get away with it and it'll at least give competitors pause.
My patent of loathing regarded an approach to fretted instrument construction which was at least 400 years old. Happily this one has expired, but licence fees were collected on the back of it - most shameful.
Had I misfiled through ignorance and collected payment as a result, I'd feel honour bound to make proper reparations to those I had duped.
Steve

[Rob Luter]

Steve - It's quite remarkable how deeply they dig. Now that electronic databases are available they can cast a pretty broad net looking for prior art. It's amazing to see the obscure stuff they dig up. They take a long time too. My first patent (about 10 years ago) took two years from application to issuance. I have some now that have been in the mill for three years already with an estimated issuance date two years from now (and these are pretty simple patents).

This is not to say situations like you describe do not occur. It's usually because the prior art (400 year old construction method for example) hasn't been formally documented. If there are no published accounts of the method to reference, it doesn't exist in the eyes of the Patent Office. I worked on a case once where we had a similar situation. We had a competitor patent a design feature that had seen widespread use in our industry for some time. Our company actually developed it. What we didn't do was protect our intellectual property, nor did we promote our invention in sales literature. The engineering documentation that supported our development timeline had been disgarded years before. As a result, the other guy got the patent and we were without recourse because we couldn't prove we were the first.

[Rob Lee]

Hi Johnny -

Respectfully - you don't know what you're talking about.

Firstly - you are not reading the patent correctly. Determining which claims are allowable and unique (and not just part of the description) is not straightforward for the lay person. Patent claims are highly structured, and have interlaced dependent and independant claims. The utility patent issued in this case is not for the head lock-up.

In addition, there are two types of patents - utility (a principle) and design (a specific instance). Design patents are affordable, and short term; Utility patents are expensive, and long term. Each has a specific purpose.

I am responsible for protecting more than 100 domestic (Canada and US) manufacturing jobs, which directly support another 700 retail jobs. Many of those jobs support families. I will take every step I can to ensure those jobs stay here - which includes paying the hundreds of thousands of dollars to our Atlanta law firm each year to keep that protection in place.

As for the ease of getting a utility patent - it gets harder every year - not easier. Searches regularly cite prior art back to to 1800's. The increased workload at the USPTO has not resulted in lower quality examinations, rather, it has put more onus on the law firms to do more work, and has resulted in legthy processing delays.

You should be more sure of your facts before committing them to print - especially if you want to comment on someone else's business.

Your "rant" and "vent" are inaccurate and misleading - you should know better than that.


Robin Lee
President
Veritas Tools
Lee Valley Tools

[Steve Hamlin]

Ouch, that must have stung, Rob. What a scoundrel.
It is right and proper that intellectual product can be protected, but I suppose inevitable that it's complexity can leave it open to abuse.
I suppose the proprietary nature of the material makes searching for prior art more difficult as well - can hardly pop a question into the trade rags and fora asking if anyone's done XYZ before. Perhaps there should be a probationary period for just that kind of poll?
Cheers
Steve

[steve reeves]

If mr. Lee wants to spend his money obtaining a patent for what he percieves as an improvement to this marking tool, it's his money... perhaps he thinks there's millions to be made off of this little improvement.

I and many of you seem to think it's not something of much importance and likely wouldn't spend an extra penny to buy one.

Perhaps Mr Lee could use this patent to claim damages and or royalty payments against others who end up wanting to use the "collet" in a similar fashion in a totally different application.

I buy a lot of Lee Valley products and will continue to do so.

I don't think anyone's intention was to besmirch Mr. Lee. Folks were just making observations and stating their opinion... isn't that what these sites are all about?

This type of thing (with the patents) happens all the time, is a routine business practice by thousands of companies and individuals.

The vast majority of patents end up not making the owner a penny....

[Rob Lee]

[QUOTE=steve reeves;906816](snip) Folks were just making observations and stating their opinion... isn't that what these sites are all about?

(snip)
[QUOTE]


Hi -

Having the freedom to make observations state opinions is not an issue when the observations are factual, and the opinions informed. Rants, vents, and unfounded speculation may make for interesting entertainment and discussion, but serve little purpose from an informational standpoint.

You will note that I do not take issue with the discussion - rather, the association of my name with inaccurate information, archived on this (or any other, for that matter) website.

Rob Lee

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

it amazes me what people will patent..



When I was with Arthur D. Little in Cambridge we patented the "swing link" inter alia.

Being a machinist, you know full well that the "swing link" has been around for oh say about a gigazillion years in a bout as many different applications.

Yet we did it anyway and the patent office said OK. The reason had nothing to do with seeking to get a lock on the swing link. It was only as to the thing we had developed that used a swing link as part of the drive mechanism.
It was all about those hundreds even thousands of incremental little steps one must take to patent every microscopic aspect of a new product so as to make it harder if not impossible for some one else to rip your design off. So there was a very narrow, very tightly drawn application specific patent on every aspect of the product we had developed. This is the "utility patent."

We also patented set screws and screws for depth adjustment and we even patented a lever, fulcrum and all. The goal is to make your opposition turn cartwheels all day long when they are trying figure out how to rip you off and in the end to fail.

[Rob Luter]

Ouch, that must have stung, Rob. What a scoundrel.
It is right and proper that intellectual product can be protected, but I suppose inevitable that it's complexity can leave it open to abuse.
I suppose the proprietary nature of the material makes searching for prior art more difficult as well - can hardly pop a question into the trade rags and fora asking if anyone's done XYZ before. Perhaps there should be a probationary period for just that kind of poll?
Cheers
Steve

Yup, it was an expensive lesson.

As far as a probationary period or one where industry comment was solicited, I think that would only serve to delay things as people throw up roadblocks that need to be investigated. We always conduct very thorough searches prior to the application even being submitted. We make it a point to try to find anything the patent office might find, but first. That keeps us from spending money we don't need to spend. Unfortunately you can only uncover detail for patents that have been granted, not those that have been applied for and are pending.

I would rather that my competitor spend lots of time and money developing a patent he ultimately can't defend. When that happens I get to experience the other side of the story. It's kind of fun to sit in a conference room full of $300/hr lawyers listening to your competitor tell you how he's going to sue the daylights out of you for using his patented intellectual property :eek:. Then you give him a copy of prior art that the patent office didn't find. They realize their patent is worthless, get a little pale, and the meeting gets wrapped up in a big hurry :D.

[Tony Zaffuto]

Rob,

You may wish to weigh in here to add or correct what I'm writing. If I'm not mistaken, you can obtain protection be submitting a letter of intent to file a patent, along with a description. The protection is for a one year duration and in that period of time you must make a full patent application or at the end of the year, your idea enters the public domain.

Tony Z.

[Rob Lee]

Rob,

You may wish to weigh in here to add or correct what I'm writing. If I'm not mistaken, you can obtain protection be submitting a letter of intent to file a patent, along with a description. The protection is for a one year duration and in that period of time you must make a full patent application or at the end of the year, your idea enters the public domain.

Tony Z.

Hi Tony -

A provisional patent application is a placeholder... registering the date (first to file counts), but does not actually have to disclose a lot of details. There isn't really any IP protection with a provisional application - it's more along the lines of "keeping your options open". You can, however, put "patent pending" on the product... for whatever that's worth...


Cheers -

Rob

[Johnny Kleso]

I understand 100% you would not want someone to start making a tool just like your's in China and selling them.. There should be laws to protect that..

What I am baffled at is when I read the Claims: lines..

Rob,
I Apologise for the poor mannor in which I wrote this and wish you nothing but the best...

[Phil Thien]

I understand 100% you would not want someone to start making a tool just like your's in China and selling them.. There should be laws to protect that..

What I am baffled at is when I read the Claims: lines..

Rob,
I Apologise for the poor mannor in which I wrote this and wish you nothing but the best...

It think it takes a great deal of character and demonstrates extreme class to write something like that.

Furthermore, I think the entire discussion demonstrates classiness on both sides.

I only mention it because it seems the exception these days.

[Danny Thompson]

Dude, respectfully, chill. We pass a LOT of love your way each and every day. It's over the top love. You could even call some of it "irrational exuberance." We're nuts about yuse guys!

So, on balance, a little sideswipe like this isn't going to affect you or your company. Post a clarification, sure, but no need to lash back.

I am sure you know that at some level you fall in the category of "the man" and are, therefore, entitled to criticism--rational or otherwise (and a "rant" is by definition somewhat irrational). JK can call you selfish, but you can't call him ignorant. That's the price of your success.

JKs comments don't change our opinion of you--like I said, we look for every opportunity to send you money, wish you were here, all that--but raise your "pimp hand" and we start thinking about you in a different way.

[Rob Lee]

Rob,
I Apologise for the poor mannor in which I wrote this and wish you nothing but the best...

Hi Johnny -

Apology accepted...

You I have corresponded on and off over the years, and you know I'm willing to answer any questions people have - privately or in public - just give me the chance!

Cheers -

Rob

[Johnny Kleso]

Rob,
I hope to see you next week in Atlanta at the IWF

If I had relized it was your patent I would not have posted this..

Like others have said we love you here hehehe

Again I am sorry for any consern you have felt, I think I was more upset with the lawery and how he worded the patent than the patent it self..

[John Schreiber]

I think the problem is that when a non-specialist reads a patent application, a lot of it looks like nonsense and the important issues which make the object unique are not easy to find.

From this patent, here are some great quotes:
a shaft having two endsIf you have a shaft, it's got to have two ends. Make one with one end and I'll be amazed.


the hole has a diameter that is greater than a width of the openingIt has a hole which is bigger than the hole?


The marking gauge of claim 1, wherein the fence is movable along the shaft such that the distance of the line to be drawn from the edge may be adjusted.Yep, that's better than a marking gauge which can only measure one distance.


6. The marking gauge of claim 1, wherein the fence has a generally round, flat surface penetrated by a hole for the shaft, wherein the hole is not centered on the surface so that there are differing amounts of surface on two opposing sides of the shaft.
15. The marking gauge of claim 14, wherein the fence has a generally round, flat surface penetrated by a hole for the shaft, wherein the hole is not centered on the surface so that there are differing amounts of surface on two opposing sides of the shaft.Is it me or is this a bit repetitive?

---
I'm sure from a patent law point of view, every one of those statements is meaningful, but as far as normal communication goes, it's easy to laugh at.