Is Sikorsky Attempting to Inhibit Others from Developing Electric Rotorcraft?

[cbonnerup]

If taking on Sikorsky...
"bring lawyers, guns and money".

If you look at the embodiments (0017) closely, the application infers that 'our invention covers everything; but not necessarily'. The layers seem to hint that they are walking a very narrow line with the claims as submitted.

- The USPTO is not interested in protecting the R&D that went into the design as claimed; it is up to the assignee to provide the capital to develop the invention
- This is a 'reduce to practice' application whereby the applicant(s) are using pieces of current technology to create a system that they believe is patentable.
- Although the Patent Office welcomes comments from individuals, examples of prior art are given more weight from those in the 'practice and art'; i.e. other mfgs. of helicopters. Bell, Aerospatial, Eurocopter, etc. would have already filed briefs with the USPTO if they have the necessary preliminary paperwork to prove earlier 'public' disclosure.

For those wishing to provide examples of prior art, a good place to start:
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/iac/customer_reps.jsp

Chris

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by cbonnerup

Although the Patent Office welcomes comments from individuals, examples of prior art are given more weight from those in the 'practice and art'; i.e. other mfgs. of helicopters. Bell, Aerospatial, Eurocopter, etc. would have already filed briefs with the USPTO if they have the necessary preliminary paperwork to prove earlier 'public' disclosure.

The rules make no distinction as to the source of the prior art, and their weight (by law) is determined by their technical content.

In U.S. practice, competitors have the right to wait until they are sued, and often save their best prior art for possible use in court, where they have more control over the proceedings than they do before the USPTO. If the prior art is a prior public use (rather than a printed publication such as a technical paper), proving it usually requires testimony of witnesses, and the USPTO is not well set up for dealing with such matters (some proceedings at the Patent Office are expressly limited to consideration of printed publications so that the Examiner doesn't have to deal with contested testimony).

[GyroJon]

Originally Posted by Ron E

I have an "over-running" motor in my electric prerotator

Please post a link to info on the Prerotator you use.

[Rotor Rooter]

Originally Posted by cbonnerup

If taking on Sikorsky...
"bring lawyers, guns and money".

Although the Patent Office welcomes comments from individuals, examples of prior art are given more weight from those in the 'practice and art'; i.e. other mfgs. of helicopters. Bell, Aerospatial, Eurocopter, etc. would have already filed briefs with the USPTO if they have the necessary preliminary paperwork to prove earlier 'public' disclosure.

Chris

I spoke to Nick Lappos before submitting a 3rd party submission on this application. He had left Sikorsky and was V.P. of research and development in Bell at the time. He said that helicopter companies do not fight the patent application, they later fight the given patent in court.

As you say, this requires big money and lawyers. It also means that any creative individual has lost before he starts.


Dave

[hillberg]

Why the proof was flown with that little coaxil thingy posted a few weeks back. Like to see the Sickhorsey lawyers push back the hands of time.

[Rotor Rooter]

Originally Posted by hillberg

Why the proof was flown with that little coaxil thingy posted a few weeks back. Like to see the Sickhorsey lawyers push back the hands of time.

Hopefully, Franz Shoeffmann's even littlier electric thingy will also be flying in the next few days or weeks.


Dave

[Rotor Rooter]

This article is in todays New York Times

Inventor Challenges a Sweeping Revision in Patent Law



Dave

[gyronutjoe]

So if I read this right, when the new law goes into effect the first company that files wins. If Sikorsky files first then Bell and Robinson and Boeing and Hughes and others would have to stop building helicopters. Yep I see that happening.

[WaspAir]

No.
For anything new, if more than one person claims to have invented it, the first to file gets it. This has been the case in the rest of the world for many, many years. Previously in the U.S., if I file in June and you file in August for the same widget, the patent office would declare an "interference", and we'd spend months sorting out who really got the work done in the lab first. Under the new process, the June filer gets it and you skip all that other proceeding. It means that you should file promptly after you invent in case somebody else has the same idea and is on his way to the patent office, too.

Who ever wins that race (whether first to invent or first to file) still has to survive examination to show that the claimed invention is actually novel and not obvious over what was known to the public when you filed. If not, the application will be rejected.

[gyronutjoe]

So If I patent a slightly different way to make a round wheel round first then from the way I read, every one else will have to go to square wheels as they would be infringing on my design even with older wheels. What I see is Sikorsky patenting the basic concept not a design. If Ford patented the car design then Ford could tell ALL other companies to stop building cars as it is now illegal.

[Rotor Rooter]

Sikorsky's application is still before the Board of Appeals.
Patent Application Information Retrieval, Application number; 12018217


A couple of months ago the head of Sikorsky Innovations said; "Our electric helicopter last year just wasn't ready for prime time. We could have done a flight, but it would have been a stunt. It arguably wouldn't have been safe enough, so we said, 'Let's hold off.'"

Could it be because Pascal beat them?




Goggle shows about 236,000 results for 'Sikorsky Firefly'.


Perhaps if Sikorsky is really interested in effective vertical flight it should have its Innovations people put its Marketing people in the basket of a hot air balloon and get them talking.


Dave

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by gyronutjoe

So If I patent a slightly different way to make a round wheel round first then from the way I read, every one else will have to go to square wheels as they would be infringing on my design even with older wheels. What I see is Sikorsky patenting the basic concept not a design. If Ford patented the car design then Ford could tell ALL other companies to stop building cars as it is now illegal.

No.
Patents cover improvements and don't reach back to what is called in the business the "prior art". The patent only covers the improvement that you devised, and not what pre-existed.

Simplified example for illustration (not actual historical fact):

1) Wright Bros. invent the airplane in 1903, and apply for a patent that issues a couple years later.
For the term of the patent, to build an airplane you need to get a license from them. Their patent expires in the 1920s. By the 1930s, anybody can build airplanes without a license from the Wright Bros.

2) Mr. Heinkel invents the jet airplane in 1937, and patents it. The Wright Bros. patent is "prior art" against his application, and he only gets patent coverage for his improvement, which is the use of jet engines in airplanes.
To build a jet airplane in 1939, you need a license from Mr. Heinkel. But you can still build a prop plane without a license from anybody. Eventually, Heinkel's patent expires, and anybody can build a jet airplane without a license from either Wright or Heinkel.

3) In 1948 Geoffrey DeHaviland invents a way to make a pressurized jet airplane, using bleed air from the jet engine to pressurize the cabin for his Comet airliner. He applies for a patent, for the improvement of using the bleed air for pressurization. Anybody who wants to make a propeller airplane can do so without a license. Anybody who wants to build an unpressurized jet airplane needs a license only from Heinkel. Anybody who wants to build a bleed-air pressurized jet airplane need licenses from both Heinkel and DeHaviland.

4) Eventually, Heinkel and DeHaviland's patents expire, and anybody, including Boeing, can now build pressurized jet airliners without any licenses from any of the guys listed above. Boeing makes lots of 707s with hydro-mechanical controls without paying any royalties. In 1975, Airbus figures out how to build a pressurized jet airplane with electronic fly-by-wire controls, and they patent it. Boeing can still build its pressurized jets with hydro-mechanical controls, and doesn't need a license from Airbus to do so. If they want to go to fly-by-wire, they need to pay Airbus.

[Rotor Rooter]

Using example 3); In 1948 Geoffrey DeHaviland invents a way to make a pressurized jet airplane, using bleed air from the jet engine to pressurize the cabin for his Comet airliner.

What if, someone in 1940 attempts to patent the general concept of pressuring an airplane, so that it is able to fly at higher altitudes.

1/ Could this person patent this concept with no idea on how to do it?

2/ And, if he could patent this general idea, would it stop DeHaviland from patenting his specific means of pressuring an airplane?

Dave

[WaspAir]

Originally Posted by Rotor Rooter

Using example 3); In 1948 Geoffrey DeHaviland invents a way to make a pressurized jet airplane, using bleed air from the jet engine to pressurize the cabin for his Comet airliner.

What if, someone in 1940 attempts to patent the general concept of pressuring an airplane, so that it is able to fly at higher altitudes.

1/ Could this person patent this concept with no idea on how to do it?

No, besides the requirements of "novelty" (it has to be new) and "non-obviousness" (it has to represent a meaningful step over what came before), there are two other inter-related requirements. One is that the invention is actually complete, or "reduced to practice". Usually, that means you've built it. Sometimes, that's not practical (e.g., you invent something that would cost billions and you don't have billions), so in that case you have to have describe it well enough that it could be built by somebody with the right resources. That leads to a requirement for the patent application document itself, which is called "enablement". Whether you've built it or not, you have to describe the invention in clear and concrete enough terms, with plenty of detail, so that somebody reading your patent could actually build it and use it with the skills typical in the field, and without having to do any undue experimentation on their own to get it to work. [You can't keep the best bits secret, either -- you have to disclose what you think is really the best mode for operating the invention, too.]

Failure to meet any of those requirements means your application will be rejected or your patent eventually invalidated in court.

Otherwise, H.G. Wells could have patented the time machine and Arthur C. Clarke could have patented the communications satellite. Fortunately, you can't patent science fiction.

[Rotor Rooter]

Thanks for your clear and informative reply.

The question related to an application and subsequent patent a few years ago where the specific means of achieving the Title were not given.
As you say, perhaps it is left to the heavy hitters to work it out in court.


Dave