Thanks, Roger. Avery At 10:38 AM 5/1/2007, you wrote: >Dear List,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> > > > >Avery has asked that I post to the list >regarding the Dampp-Chaser patent on the >undercover and the backside cover. As a >manufacturer, we maintain a strong business >relationship with our local patent >attorneys. When we come up with a new idea we >get their law firm involved. They complete an >initial evaluation of potential >patentability. If they make a positive >recommendation, we work with them to complete an >application. They obviously use their special >terminology and illustrations that deliver a >document designed to meet a government patent >inspectors expectations. Then we enter into a >review and appeal process that after some (often >seemingly endless) period of time can result in >a patent being issued. Sometimes we are told >that the idea is obvious and not patentable at >the end of this journey. Costs are considerable >as the attorneys charge by the minute at a rate equivalent to $250 per hour. > > > >Patents are often drafted to include anything >under the sun type claims. Then some claims >get rejected during the iterative review >process. The patent as issued can then have >some inconsistencies within the document based >on these activities. With regard to the patent >under discussion, I believe we had a long list >of materials for use as an undercover or >backside cover and tried to achieve maximum >material design freedom in the final document >subject to the judgments of the patent inspector. > > > >The Mylar was initially used on upright pianos, >but was never tried on a grand. We feel that >our current material falls within the scope of >the patent as do most materials purchased at >fabric stores, but others may disagree. We have >heard the argument that the patent was issued >for an obvious idea. Indeed this topic is in >the news with a recent Supreme Court ruling >saying that too many patents have been issued >for obvious ideas. With these changes in the >air, critics of our patent may have a means to >reverse it in the future if they have the >time, energy and money to participate in the process. > > > >Kindly note we have not been pushy about the >patent. In the numerous training programs we >conduct I simply mention the patent, explain >that we are not the patent police, and ask >technicians to do what they feel is right. > > > >Our intention was and is to develop a climate >control system that provides maximum benefit to >the piano. I was skeptical of the undercover >benefit at first, but over the years I have seen >it improve system performance in many grand >installations. In this regard, we are >considering making it standard equipment in the >grand systems sold in <?xml:namespace prefix = >st1 ns = >"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" >/>Europe. I do appreciate the kind comments >about our product in this thread that has >certainly morphed from a data logger >discussion. I also thank you for your support >of our organization over the years. > > > >Sincerely, > > > >Roger Wheelock, VP > >Dampp-Chaser Corporation >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:avery1 at houston.rr.com>Avery >To: <mailto:pianotech at ptg.org>Pianotech List >Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:21 PM >Subject: Re: Dampp-Chaser Patent #6,133,519 > >John & others, > >I just sent this to Roger Wheelock at Dampp-Chaser. Maybe he'll have something >to say. > >Avery > >At 08:54 PM 4/30/2007, you wrote: >>Paul, >> >>I looked at this last night. (www.uspto.gov) It appears to be the only >>patent for a cover to be used in conjunction with a DC system. I >>didn't look everywhere, but this was one of the three patents I found >>for Dampp-Chaser Corp. >> >>Anyway, what this appears to be talking about is the older way of >>doing it with the mylar type plastic material. I think I installed >>only one of those, as it was right around the time that I started >>working full-time as a piano tech. >> >>The undercover in use now is speaker fabric. >> >>There is a possibility that there might be a patent pending. Maybe >>someone could contact Dampp-Chaser and find out. Or maybe someone from >>there will comment here on the list. >> >>There are a number of us who want to abide by the law, and it would be >>helpful to know exactly what that is. >> >>JF >> >>P.S. After reading the patent lingo, one thing I hope I never have to >>become is a patent lawyer. Ugh! :-) No offense to any of you who >>like that kind of thing. >> >>On 4/30/07, paul bruesch <tunergeek at gmail.com> wrote: >>>I found the Dampp-Chaser's patent online: >>>http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6133519.pdf >>>(you might have to create an account to look at the pdf, for some darned >>>reason) >>> >>>According to the abstract, the under/back cover patent is for a "...moisture >>>impervious aperture free sheet...". In the detail of the patent write-up, >>>under "Background of the Invention" it specifies "MYLAR or felt" (caps >>>theirs) "... having a plurality of apertures or holes..." (which, to my >>>mind, contradicts the abstract portion... but then again I'm not a lawyer.) >>> >>>So, what sort of fabric/material is Dampp-Chaser's under/back cover made >>>of? I'm not a rocket scientist, nor even a acoustic engineer, heck, I'm not >>>even an RPT, but the idea of Mylar back/under cover on a piano sounds to me >>>like it would sound a bit bizarre. Wouldn't it?? And wouldn't felt mute and >>>muffle the sound? (see previous disclaimers regarding my qualifications) >>> >>>I wonder what a "plurality of apertures or holes" means... several holes >>>and/or apertures in the cover, or is that phrase intended to include an open >>>weave like speaker cloth, being what it sounds like many techs are using. >>>An open weave certainly has a "plurality of holes," but it would make a lot >>>more better sense to say "open weave fabric." >>> >>>Please understand that I'm not trying to get around anyone's patent, or >>>infringe on same... when the time comes I'll order the DC cover simply for >>>the convenience of it, if for no other reason. My curiosity is piqued about >>>this patent for a new way to use a piece of cloth... and I'd just like to >>>understand it better. Judging from the amount of traffic generated by this >>>topic, I don't think I'm alone. >>> >>>Paul Bruesch >>>Computer Geek and PTG Associate, who typically plays by the rules but wants >>>to understand them. And I don't run with scissors. >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20070501/995be933/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC