<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV> Dear List,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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 inspector’s 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 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" /><st1:place>Europe</st1:place>.  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.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Sincerely,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Roger Wheelock, VP<o:p></o:p> Dampp-Chaser Corporation<o:p></o:p></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: <A title=avery1@houston.rr.com href="mailto:avery1@houston.rr.com">Avery</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">To: <A title=pianotech@ptg.org href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">Pianotech List</A> </DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:21 PM</DIV> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">Subject: Re: Dampp-Chaser Patent #6,133,519</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>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: <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Paul, I looked at this last night. (<A href="http://www.uspto.gov" eudora="autourl">www.uspto.gov</A>) 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@gmail.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">I found the Dampp-Chaser's patent online: <A href="http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6133519.pdf" eudora="autourl">http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6133519.pdf</A> (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. </BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>