Read the claims on that patent.Originally Posted by warbonnetguy
Read the claims on that patent.
It's from an Ohio scout website.
The caption reads...
Peterloon is a very large Camporee that Dan Beard Council puts on every two years. Our Scouts relish the opportunity to distinguish themselves from the ordinary by putting together a unique encampment. In 2004, they built this hammock city. With over 600 troops attending, there was nothing else like it!
what do you mean? i skimmed them, but even if they didn't intend for it to have the effect of setting the sag it still would do that. a fixed length of rope between the ends of the hammock that is shorter than the hammock fabric is exactly what that looks like, and is exactly what the hh patent is for.
Yes, but the "claims", the last 3 or 4 paragraphs lay out what the inventor is patenting. No mention of the "ridge line" in the drawing in the "claims". Read Hennessey's patent on the ridge line. He specifically "claims" the ridge line in the last paragraph.
is it part of the stand or the hammock? does it matter? even if it is part of the structure of the stand, it is also part of the structure of the hammock as well. lengthen the rope and you get less sag, shorten it and you get more. it is a fixed length of rope which is fixed to the ends of the hammock and whose length directly effects the amount of sag in the hammock fabric. it just happens to adjust the supports of the stand as well. if someone had patented a fixed hammock ridgeline just for the purpose of hanging your headlamp and glasses from but it also had the effect of fixing the sag, it shouldn't matter that they didn't mention this fact in the claims, it still has that effect.
also, it doesn't have to be claimed in the patent to be in prior art/public domain, it could be in a picture in a magazine for instance, which wouldn't necessarily be be claimed in a patent somewhere, but it would put it in the public domain. the diagram just shows that it existed 100+ years ago which should be enough to show it is not a new idea, which an idea has to be new to be patented according to patent law. who knows, maybe the inventor just assumed that it was obvious that changing the length of rope would effect the sag of the hammock. a picture is after all worth a 1000 words. he didn't say anything about making the legs of the stand longer having the effect of making the hammock higher off the ground either, probably because it goes without saying.
Last edited by warbonnetguy; 04-18-2008 at 15:25.
All that is arguable.
Here is an older one from 1876 with some interesting aspects http://www.google.com/patents?id=T5J...BAJ&dq=hammock . These two patents are with combination hammock/stand, so that is a difference. But they show ridgelines and one is used for a bugnet and in the other case the ridgeline is used in combination with other ropes to adjust how the hammock lies-- but by affecting the stand that the hammock is attached to. So I would think the concept of a ridgeline for a bugnet and a ridgeline affecting how the hammock lies was clearly explored in the 1800s.
Again, it is all arguable. One could argue that a bugnet ridgeline was clearly in the public domain and there is no requirement that it not be taut and made of a low stretch rope, in fact, that is what one would reasonably expect. What other kind of rope did they have in the 1800s? One fine point might be that the ridgeline is attached to the hammock support arms above the hammock. There are some fine lines with all this at this point, so who knows.
Youngblood AT2000
Very interesting thread Youngblood. Warbonnet,You are killing me with your posts. I like you buddy, you gotta fire in your belly. Gonna miss you at Trail Days. Congratulations too.
The claims are the key. Based on Tiredfeet's post, I'd say Hennessey was very smart. I tried to do my patent myself. I did the search, and this was before the uspto was available online. Many hours in an official uspto library (OSU). It's amazing how easy it is now. When I got ready to write my claims, I knew I was in over my head and hired a patent attorney. He used my search and record of prior art. The claims are the key to an effective patent.
Yes it does, if they did not specifically claim fixing the sag, then HH simply improved on an existing invention, which is patentable. He liked his idea so much he patented it twice:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=XvU...nnessy+hammock
http://www.google.com/patents?id=MYy...nnessy+hammock
The claims change but notice the pictures for each patent.
Excellent point Warbonnet. It cannot be patented if it is in public domain. Good luck with this, but it seems to me prior art is in your favor.
I have a Packa on ebay, if anyone is interested in my patent.
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Packa-hiker-...QQcmdZViewItem
Cedar Tree
I found another one from 1904. http://www.google.com/patents?id=UEVBAAAAEBAJ&dq=788815
With the grommet in Fig. 4 setting the length of C, it looks like it has a structural 'roof' that sets the sag of that hammock. That is with cross braces, or what we call a spreader bars these days. In Fig. 2, H is longer than C by the circumference of B if both H and B are truly taut as shown in the sketch. It is little weird looking, but it is what it is.
Last edited by Youngblood; 04-18-2008 at 17:33. Reason: grammer
Youngblood AT2000
why weren't these patents listed as references in the hh ridgeline patent? they are very closely related with respect to the ridgeline part. the lawyer is supposed to do a "thorough" patent search and list any similar or relavent patents as prior art. then the patent examiner is supposed to do the same. these are multiple examples of a ridgeline. i could see one maybe slipping by unnoticed, but several? these should have been cited, just shows how careful the examiners are when it comes to making sure something really is a new idea. maybe i should try to patent the wheel.
Last edited by warbonnetguy; 04-18-2008 at 18:45.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks