-2

Take a look at this patent. wo2013112217a3

There are hundreds if not thousands of patents filed before this patent that utilize this fundamental principal. Technically all samurai swords are in violation of this patent. Silly to see that system reform we had for patent system encourages this ridiculous behavior.

Thomas Edison is turning in his grave. This is stopping technology development.

  • 1
    There are patent applications that seem ridiculous on their face. I don't think this is one of them. – George White Oct 24 '13 at 23:38
1

This international application has resulted in the following US patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9101979B2/en

Claim 1 reads:

  1. A method of fabricating a multi-functional multilayer article comprising: determining a shape for the article and defining at least two spatially separated regions on said article, said two regions to be formed of at least two distinct materials being joined by at least one compositional gradient transition region; mapping a compositional gradient pathway onto said article between said at least two regions such that the at least one compositional gradient transition region substantially excludes any undesirable compositional phases; and forming the article, wherein at least the at least one compositional gradient transition region comprises a plurality of distinct gradient layers formed by incrementally adjusting the compositional ratio between the at least two distinct materials.

This claim may or may not be valid in light of prior art the examiner hasn't seen, but the PTO deemed it novel. If you believe otherwise, there are proper channels for asking the PTO to review the novelty of granted patents.

Edit: regarding those "proper channels", you can request a re-examination from the PTO, or request an IPR from the PTAB, or ask a court for a declaratory judgement of invalidity. There is so much more to this topic such as CBM and PGR proceedings and other rabbit holes.

For a summary, see: http://www.dilworthbarrese.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/CHALLENGING-THE-VALIDITY-OF-A-U.S.-PATENT-UNDER-AIA.pdf

0

This is an application, not a granted patent. And I do not think Samurai were doing what the Cal Tech researchers are claiming. For example:

claim 4. The method according to claim 1 , wherein the at least one gradient transition region comprises a multi-stage gradient wherein the gradient region includes both incremental compositional steps and direct stepwise compositional transitions.

  • well in the traditional making of swords the blade was folded repeatedly thus producing many layers, which sounds like stepwise compositional transitions to me. additionally the middle part of the heated blade would be coated with an insulating material prior to quenching, thus producing gradient transitions of the resulting crystal structures. so yes, claim 4 does sound a lot like what has been done for hundreds of years. – codeslinger Oct 30 '13 at 19:45
-1

Hm, "The invention described herein was made in the performance of work under a NASA contract" but no info about that contract...

So, american taxpayers paid for this, without knowing that everything was later used to make a personal intellectual property for some people. As i know all inventions what was made by NASA for taxpayers money can be used by any american company in special request to use as prior art and etc. One startup effectively used this bureaucratic procedure for their own project of new space shuttle. It's easy in fact.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.