GIA''s amazing new patent

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Did I miss something?
This patent application (not yet granted) seems to be for the graphic on GIA diamond grading reports.

Is this a patent for an obvious idea that is not new to most of you - there for not patentable if anyone who has already seen it wants to use it?

And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?

It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

 

[oldminer]

I think they want to patent the automatic rendering of a precision line drawing for plotting or stone description. I believe they will be infringing on existing patents besides Garry''s initial objection to fair use that has long existed. The publication of Application for a Patent has just recently been required. People with interest in these matters now will be able to directly object to issuance of a Patent before the government wasts a huge amount of time and effort in research only to be in the midst of patent infringment suits later on. The publication of applications is seen as a possible way to reduce fals patent claims and also to reduce the number of objections to issued patents. Catching the problems in advance of issuing a patent is a definite plus.

 

[starryeyed]

Garry, I literally have no idea, but I have to admit, that before these new certs, I never saw reference to "star length" or "low girdle facet length". Perhaps it has something to do with this?

If you go to their cut evaluator Facetware you need to input these dimensions for the cut to be assessed. Maybe they are trying to make this proprietary in order to compete with the coveted "AGS000" designation. Or even the Holloway Cut Adviser!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 3:03:34 PM
Author: starryeyed
Garry, I literally have no idea, but I have to admit, that before these new certs, I never saw reference to ''star length'' or ''low girdle facet length''. Perhaps it has something to do with this?

If you go to their cut evaluator Facetware you need to input these dimensions for the cut to be assessed. Maybe they are trying to make this proprietary in order to compete with the coveted ''AGS000'' designation. Or even the Holloway Cut Adviser!

It goes way before that... I had thatin my software in the 1990''s, with correctly proportioned diagrams..

See it here.. Intellectual property theft?.. and a new web site for exposure of the games GIA plays

http://www.greedyinstituteofarrogance.com

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 2:57:25 PM
Author: oldminer
I think they want to patent the automatic rendering of a precision line drawing for plotting or stone description. I believe they will be infringing on existing patents besides Garry''s initial objection to fair use that has long existed. The publication of Application for a Patent has just recently been required. People with interest in these matters now will be able to directly object to issuance of a Patent before the government wasts a huge amount of time and effort in research only to be in the midst of patent infringment suits later on. The publication of applications is seen as a possible way to reduce fals patent claims and also to reduce the number of objections to issued patents. Catching the problems in advance of issuing a patent is a definite plus.

But it requires any Laboratory already doing it on their reports to send a letter of complaint to the USPTO, and they can cite my copyrighted software as prior art, going back to 1994.

see http://www.adqamagem.org/accuplot.pdf for the 1994 JCK article

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2007 2:47:07 PM
Author:Garry H (Cut Nut)
Did I miss something?
This patent application (not yet granted) seems to be for the graphic on GIA diamond grading reports.

Is this a patent for an obvious idea that is not new to most of you - there for not patentable if anyone who has already seen it wants to use it?

And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?

It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

Is that a Utility Patent Application??? for a sketch design??? i dont think so!!!

interesting!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 3:51:36 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/22/2007 2:47:07 PM
Author:Garry H (Cut Nut)
Did I miss something?
This patent application (not yet granted) seems to be for the graphic on GIA diamond grading reports.

Is this a patent for an obvious idea that is not new to most of you - there for not patentable if anyone who has already seen it wants to use it?

And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?

It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

Is that a Utility Patent Application??? for a sketch design??? i dont think so!!!

interesting!

Utilkity patent.. for what I have delivered to my clients in software since 1994

 

[strmrdr]

what a joke.....

 

[pricescope]

US PTO: System and method for generating a gemstone proportion graphic

Abstract
A system and technique for generating a graphical representation of a gemstone is used to generate a scaled profile view of a gemstone representation. The scaled gemstone graphic includes a first portion that contains scaled graphical representations of facets and a second portion that contains no facets. The gemstone graphic is scaled in accordance with a set of cut proportions obtained for the gemstone representation. The gemstone graphic can be rendered for printing or display in connection with a gemstone grading report.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 4:14:34 PM
Author: Pricescope
US PTO: System and method for generating a gemstone proportion graphic

Abstract
A system and technique for generating a graphical representation of a gemstone is used to generate a scaled profile view of a gemstone representation. The scaled gemstone graphic includes a first portion that contains scaled graphical representations of facets and a second portion that contains no facets. The gemstone graphic is scaled in accordance with a set of cut proportions obtained for the gemstone representation. The gemstone graphic can be rendered for printing or display in connection with a gemstone grading report.

EXACTLY what I have been doing for my clients since 1994... except I drew all the facets unless I did the 2D profile raytrace..

 

[adamasgem]

The pdf of the patent which I originally sent Garry can be found on my web site


http://www.adamasgem.org/20060267975.pdf

GIA patent


and the jck article at

http://www.adamasgem.org/accuplot.pdf

 

[niceice]

Date: 1/22/2007 4:14:34 PM
Author: Pricescope
US PTO: System and method for generating a gemstone proportion graphic

Abstract
The gemstone graphic is scaled in accordance with a set of cut proportions obtained for the gemstone representation. The gemstone graphic can be rendered for printing or display in connection with a gemstone grading report.

Amazing! Wasn''t this one of the original selling features that Peter Yantzer, Director of the AGS Laboratory used as a selling feature for their lab reports back in the mid-1990''s. Because I''d swear that it was. In fact, I recall Peter showing us a live demonstration of how they create the "to scale" diagram of each diamond graded on the corresponding lab report when I visited the AGS Laboratory in the late 1990''s. Reminds me of somebody trying to trademark the term "Hearts & Arrows" for diamonds a few years back after it was an up and running concept here in the U.S. and had been common use for like ever. I guess people can try anything and will for a buck.

Hey Marty, c''mon buddy are you "really" all that surprised by this? Feel the Love. What''s in a concept after all

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 6:55:28 PM
Author: niceice


Amazing! Wasn''t this one of the original selling features that Peter Yantzer, Director of the AGS Laboratory used as a selling feature for their lab reports back in the mid-1990''s. Because I''d swear that it was. In fact, I recall Peter showing us a live demonstration of how they create the ''to scale'' diagram of each diamond graded on the corresponding lab report when I visited the AGS Laboratory in the late 1990''s. Reminds me of somebody trying to trademark the term ''Hearts & Arrows'' for diamonds a few years back after it was an up and running concept here in the U.S. and had been common use for like ever. I guess people can try anything and will for a buck.

Hey Marty, c''mon buddy are you ''really'' all that surprised by this? Feel the Love. What''s in a concept after all

Yup, "Surprized" NO....

"Feel the love" About as much as for ex wives


"Concept" Hey Crooks are crooks, they will steal anything

The shame is that if the patent is granted, Laboratories and appraisers who use the concept will have to sue GIA, or be sued by GIA, which is going to cost them a lot of money..

I don''t intend on letting that happen. !!!!!!!!!!!!

I''ve got them by the shorthairs on this one, and I intend to twist hard.

I''m preparing a lettter to the USPTO citing prior art going back to my original software copyright, and explaining the harm letting the b******ds get away with c**p like this would do, and I don''t intend on mincing words (Like I sometimes do

).

GIA tries to put a stanglehold on the industry, controling everything, and treat both the trade and the consuming public like mushrooms, feeding them you know what.

Wait until this BS hits the trade press...

I intend to get GIA to withdraw their patent application, period..

Do you realize that a SARIN report would violate the patent??? Who the hell do they think they are anyway? I know, we are supposed to bow down and treat them as G-Ds.. They are more like Saten reincarnate..

 

[Adylon]

It seems to me like they want to patent the concept of putting both forms of infomration on one graphic. Ie. They want the facets to be on one side (so they can label/measure star facet and lower girdle facet, and the other side to have the cut-away profile for all the proportions.

I don't see anything wrong with that (unless somoene else has been issuing these 50/50 graphics in their diamond reports prior?). They just don't want anyone copying their "art" or format or whatever you call it. I think you'd be free to make 2 pictures of 2 diamonds to scale or whatever, one with the facets and measurements and one with the proportions and measurements. But in order to visually put all that data on one graphic you'd have to split it up 50/50 like that, and that is what they don't want people copying. I could be wrong... and it is kind of obvious... but oh well, just my 2c.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 8:14:32 PM
Author: Adylon
It seems to me like they want to patent the concept of putting both forms of infomration on one graphic. Ie. They want the facets to be on one side (so they can label/measure star facet and lower girdle facet, and the other side to have the cut-away profile for all the proportions.

I don''t see anything wrong with that (unless somoene else has been issuing these 50/50 graphics in their diamond reports prior?). They just don''t want anyone copying their ''art'' or format or whatever you call it. I think you''d be free to make 2 pictures of 2 diamonds to scale or whatever, one with the facets and measurements and one with the proportions and measurements. But in order to visually put all that data on one graphic you''d have to split it up 50/50 like that, and that is what they don''t want people copying. I could be wrong... and it is kind of obvious... but oh well, just my 2c.

Close, but no cigar..

Read the patent claims, the main and derivative (dependent) claims....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/22/2007 8:14:32 PM
Author: Adylon
It seems to me like they want to patent the concept of putting both forms of infomration on one graphic. Ie. They want the facets to be on one side (so they can label/measure star facet and lower girdle facet, and the other side to have the cut-away profile for all the proportions.

I don''t see anything wrong with that (unless somoene else has been issuing these 50/50 graphics in their diamond reports prior?). They just don''t want anyone copying their ''art'' or format or whatever you call it. I think you''d be free to make 2 pictures of 2 diamonds to scale or whatever, one with the facets and measurements and one with the proportions and measurements. But in order to visually put all that data on one graphic you''d have to split it up 50/50 like that, and that is what they don''t want people copying. I could be wrong... and it is kind of obvious... but oh well, just my 2c.

Re my initial statement above Adylon - should they have the right to use funds they gain from the industry and consumers to build themselves monopolistic businesses?

as said befor:

And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?

It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

 

[RockDoc]

I''ve been using "to scale" graphics in my report for about 7 years.

Definately before GIA applied for a patent, but subsequent to Marty''s accuvue software.


Maybe GIA though no one would notice the patent application.


But sounds like GIA is gonna get "Martinized" !!!!

Rockdoc

 

[Adylon]

Date: 1/22/2007 9:28:28 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Re my initial statement above Adylon - should they have the right to use funds they gain from the industry and consumers to build themselves monopolistic businesses?


as said befor:


And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?


It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

Hi Garry, believe me I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm not a lawyer I have no idea what they're allowed to do as a non-profit organization or by gaining this patent. I'm not GIA's biggest advocate either, I think they're a very fair/honest/reputable lab but I do not like their processing times. The last stone I sent in took 5 weeks and the one before that was 7 weeks. I just sent one to AGS last Wednesday and got the preliminary results faxed today after 4 days and should have my stone tomorrow. AGS is even running ads in trade magazines promoting their quick 1-week turn around time among other things, plus their new cut which we all know is a step above GIA's in terms of precision. Obviously AGS is competing very hard on all fronts to win business and GIA is trying to protect it's marketshare, or at least that's how I see it. Perhaps this is just their attempt to keep someone else from copyrighting it to prevent losing all the revenue from all the reports they're generating now, and hopefully they won't be going after others who copy their same format and schematics.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

First let me say that I am not anti GIA, I am anti some of GIA''s behaviour.

Where would we be without them to do totally required research into synthetic diamond id and beriylium diffusion and a host of other stuff like laser drilling and on and on?

Date: 1/22/2007 9:58:51 PM
Author: Adylon

Date: 1/22/2007 9:28:28 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Re my initial statement above Adylon - should they have the right to use funds they gain from the industry and consumers to build themselves monopolistic businesses?


as said befor:


And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?


It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

Hi Garry, believe me I''m not disagreeing with you. I''m not a lawyer I have no idea what they''re allowed to do as a non-profit organization or by gaining this patent. I''m not GIA''s biggest advocate either, I think they''re a very fair/honest/reputable lab but I do not like their processing times. The last stone I sent in took 5 weeks and the one before that was 7 weeks. I just sent one to AGS last Wednesday and got the preliminary results faxed today after 4 days and should have my stone tomorrow. AGS is even running ads in trade magazines promoting their quick 1-week turn around time among other things, plus their new cut which we all know is a step above GIA''s in terms of precision. Obviously AGS is competing very hard on all fronts to win business and GIA is trying to protect it''s marketshare, or at least that''s how I see it. Perhaps this is just their attempt to keep someone else from copyrighting it to prevent losing all the revenue from all the reports they''re generating now, and hopefully they won''t be going after others who copy their same format and schematics.

But in your comparison A - AGS Lab is a for profit business that is a 50:50 partnership between investors and the not for profit association.
It pays taxes and the left over goes to the investors who run it as a business.

GIA GTL is part of a not for profit GIA - and while I do not think not for profits should run at break even or a loss - they should respect the rights of other organizations and I do not believe they should behave agressively in the market place.

But I do believe there is a court case running between the GIA and the past Chairman (who mentioned this in his valadictory speech at the GIA Symposium). So by what standards does this organization run?

And while it seemed to me at first that they included steep deep proportion sets in their round cut grade system to maximise the number of stones they grade - I now understand that after 15 years study they just messed the job up (no conspiracy).

I think it is sad they got rid of Bill Boyajian - because I doubt he would have stood for this sort of litigious stuff (current CEO is a lawyer), and knew enough about gemology and the industry to know where to draw the lline. (even though Marty will disagree - Bill was a good balance of business person and loyalist GIA man.)

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2007 9:58:51 PM
Author: Adylon

Date: 1/22/2007 9:28:28 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Re my initial statement above Adylon - should they have the right to use funds they gain from the industry and consumers to build themselves monopolistic businesses?


as said befor:


And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?


It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

Hi Garry, believe me I''m not disagreeing with you. I''m not a lawyer I have no idea what they''re allowed to do as a non-profit organization or by gaining this patent. I''m not GIA''s biggest advocate either, I think they''re a very fair/honest/reputable lab but I do not like their processing times. The last stone I sent in took 5 weeks and the one before that was 7 weeks. I just sent one to AGS last Wednesday and got the preliminary results faxed today after 4 days and should have my stone tomorrow. AGS is even running ads in trade magazines promoting their quick 1-week turn around time among other things, plus their new cut which we all know is a step above GIA''s in terms of precision. Obviously AGS is competing very hard on all fronts to win business and GIA is trying to protect it''s marketshare, or at least that''s how I see it. Perhaps this is just their attempt to keep someone else from copyrighting it to prevent losing all the revenue from all the reports they''re generating now, and hopefully they won''t be going after others who copy their same format and schematics.

GIA is trying very hard to regain these compliments. I think they have a loooong way to work hard to achieve this!!!
Trying to patent someone else''s prior art is not helping them!!!

Their processing times are another subject alltogether, but its our (members of this industry that usess their services) fault for crowning the GIA to this position!! Today they can affort to hold diamonds for as long as they want, after all most consumers wants their reports on diamonds they purchase.

 

[oldminer]

GIA-GTL is a FOR PROFIT entity to the best of my knowledge. It is operated and even owned outside of the GIA. You will find it very difficult to establish who owns the GTL, but it is the major players of the lab over the first 50 years that were of prime ownership. They have done very nicely with their lab on a profit basis.

The GIA is non-profit and for the "benefit" of the trade. The GTL is somewhat differently configured.

I think this patent application will be objected to by Ogi, Sarin, Haskeites, Helium and others who seek to map and print out exacting line renderings of diamonds that have been scanned. We''ll see how this plays out. New rules of the patent Office have come into play this new year which require publication of applications. Its going to be more difficult to get approval if there are immediate and vocal objections BEFORE the application is initially approved.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/23/2007 7:15:02 AM
Author: oldminer
GIA-GTL is a FOR PROFIT entity to the best of my knowledge. It is operated and even owned outside of the GIA. You will find it very difficult to establish who owns the GTL, but it is the major players of the lab over the first 50 years that were of prime ownership. They have done very nicely with their lab on a profit basis.

The GIA is non-profit and for the ''benefit'' of the trade. The GTL is somewhat differently configured.

I think this patent application will be objected to by Ogi, Sarin, Haskeites, Helium and others who seek to map and print out exacting line renderings of diamonds that have been scanned. We''ll see how this plays out. New rules of the patent Office have come into play this new year which require publication of applications. Its going to be more difficult to get approval if there are immediate and vocal objections BEFORE the application is initially approved.

Dave.. GIA/GTL''s income is reported on the "charitable" organization IRS forms, available online, in case you want to look..

http://partners.guidestar.org/partners/cadoj/docs.jsp?npoId=58534

$100+ million a year in 2004

Sarin/Helium/OGI can, and have done a much better job than I did in the 90''s, and THEIR exacting work, based on information I didn''t have at the time from scanners, PREDATES GIA''s patent application priority date, filed in March 2005.
As far as I can see, they are nothing less than intellectual property thieves, not uncommon in this industry. And I''ll have to admit, that probably a lot have swiped GIA''s teachings and methodolgy ( but they had to pay for it). GIA has been innovative at times, but usually it is because of outside influence. They have always had a tendency to grab something and make a proprietary product out of it. I can go on with specifc examples ad-nausium.

I believe AGS was the first major laboratory to report the profile view information, the diagram being a stock diagram, not necessarily correctly proportioned, but the dimensional callouts being accurate (and based on averaged parameters, which you have to do on a profile view, unless you report every facet like the scanner manufacturers do), with normal decimal rounding convention, UNLIKE GIA''s idiotic methodology. Let''s see, if you have accurate numbers we''ll make them all inaccurate, so there is no differentiation between scanner accuracy shown. Real politically correct, allowing the cutters more slop to get the same "grade".

I know EGL had a similar format on their diamond reports, probably earlier than 1999, a sample from their advertizing brochure that I have a copy of, and some could easily say that GIA''s graphic callouts are a copy of AGS''s and EGL''s.

I believe the law requiring patent applications to be published 18 months (I think) after application, took effect in 2001.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/23/2007 1:27:04 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
.

But I do believe there is a court case running between the GIA and the past Chairman (who mentioned this in his valadictory speech at the GIA Symposium). So by what standards does this organization run?

Are you talking about the LKI (Templesman) suit against GIA regarding the LKI laser inscription patent??? That should cost GIA a bundle..

 

[RockDoc]

GTL is a separate entitiy from GIA. It is a "wholly owned subsidiary".

Interesting that the patent is assigned to GIA, but it is obviously for use in GTL''s product.

I wonder if there is an "internal" licensing agreement planned should GIA be granted the patent, since it obvious that it will be more commonly used by GTL? Further, will GIA make the software available to its students, and license them to use it on their reports?

Although I''m not considered to be one of the "major" labs, I started writing about the " 40 Mystery Facets" years ago back in DT days, and reported all of the facet angle degrees and percentages BEFORE anyone else to my knowledge did.
Table and depths were reported using averages which only were 16/17 of the facets.

I reported stars, lgf''s and ugf''s in my reports starting around 1998-9, and writing tons about how necessary it was to report all the facet angles because report an average of each facet group would be misleading as it is not possible to make them all equal due to the grain of the stone.

Although also criticized for reporting strain and photographing it in my reports, I wonder if that will eventually become part of major labs reports in the future.

I have heard that GIA internally has records of strain centers plotted, but they don''t disclose that information in their reports.

Rockdoc

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/22/2007 2:47:07 PM
Author:Garry H (Cut Nut)
Did I miss something?
This patent application (not yet granted) seems to be for the graphic on GIA diamond grading reports.

Is this a patent for an obvious idea that is not new to most of you - there for not patentable if anyone who has already seen it wants to use it?

And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?

It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

When I first read this patent, I got somewhat p***sed off, as starting from the first independent claim 1, it is largely prior art, including the methodology and consistency checks, etc. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AS A DESIGN PATENT, PERIOD, and not a UTILITY patent, but then of course it would be much simpler, and the attorneys wouldn''t make as much money.

WHAT IS NOVEL, and probably patentable, is the SPECIFIC TYPE OF GRAPHIC shown above in figures 4 and 5, and covered in claims 7, 8, 13, 24, and NOT the general profile presentation with EXTERNAL callouts or desciptors/dimensions.

What GIA has done, to their credit, is construct a PARTICULAR graphic presentation(s) (fig 4 and 5) where all the facets in the profile are not shown, and INTERNAL to the profile are the callouts/ descriptors/dimensions, as opposed to the typical way of presentation where the dimensions/desciptors are EXTERNAL to the profile. All the rest of the application is pure dangerous BS.

However, they and their mouthpieces, claim the world in addition, because of the way the patent is written..
It should not be granted in this form, in my opinion, because it gives them the world..

 

[Rhino]

It''ll be interesting to see how this plays out. One note of difference between the GIA grahic and those generated via Sarin & Helium (not OGI) is that the Sarin and Helium graphics are based on actual scans/models of the diamond it is reporting on (OGI uses a default graphic for all rounds). GIA''s is not actual to the diamond while Sarin/Helium are. I wonder if this makes any difference?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/23/2007 5:52:56 PM
Author: Rhino
It''ll be interesting to see how this plays out. One note of difference between the GIA grahic and those generated via Sarin & Helium (not OGI) is that the Sarin and Helium graphics are based on actual scans/models of the diamond it is reporting on (OGI uses a default graphic for all rounds). GIA''s is not actual to the diamond while Sarin/Helium are. I wonder if this makes any difference?

Rounded/Averaged/actual numbers used are not the legal issue. If the patent were rewritten to cover ONLY the specific graphic, and not have independent claims that "could" be used against others in harrasment suits, then OK.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/23/2007 10:10:58 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 1/22/2007 2:47:07 PM
Author:Garry H (Cut Nut)
Did I miss something?
This patent application (not yet granted) seems to be for the graphic on GIA diamond grading reports.

Is this a patent for an obvious idea that is not new to most of you - there for not patentable if anyone who has already seen it wants to use it?

And if they could stop others from using it - would that be fair given their leadership position within the industry?

It is hard to understand what this public interst organization is doing with the resources that it earns from gem trade and consumers who pay for its services?

When I first read this patent, I got somewhat p***sed off, as starting from the first independent claim 1, it is largely prior art, including the methodology and consistency checks, etc. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AS A DESIGN PATENT, PERIOD, and not a UTILITY patent, but then of course it would be much simpler, and the attorneys wouldn''t make as much money.

WHAT IS NOVEL, and probably patentable, is the SPECIFIC TYPE OF GRAPHIC shown above in figures 4 and 5, and covered in claims 7, 8, 13, 24, and NOT the general profile presentation with EXTERNAL callouts or desciptors/dimensions.

What GIA has done, to their credit, is construct a PARTICULAR graphic presentation(s) (fig 4 and 5) where all the facets in the profile are not shown, and INTERNAL to the profile are the callouts/ descriptors/dimensions, as opposed to the typical way of presentation where the dimensions/desciptors are EXTERNAL to the profile. All the rest of the application is pure dangerous BS.

However, they and their mouthpieces, claim the world in addition, because of the way the patent is written..
It should not be granted in this form, in my opinion, because it gives them the world..

Marty sas my first post mentions - I thought it was impossible to apply for a patent after you have publicly communicated an idea - see the 2 blue comments highlighted above.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/23/2007 7:36:05 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Marty sas my first post mentions - I thought it was impossible to apply for a patent after you have publicly communicated an idea - see the 2 blue comments highlighted above.

I don''t think that they had publically shown the new graphic PRIOR to the filing of the patent application..

BTW.. Their patent claims to take great care to make things consistent, computer checks etc in their claims..

Do the arithmatic on the numbers in the graphic above on the patent..

Table 57%
Crown Height = 13.5%
Crown Angle 34.5 degrees


SEEMS their rounding scheme makes for strange numbers.. par for the course

CROWN ANGLE = ArcTan(Crown Height%/(50% - 0.5*Table%))
CROWN ANGLE = ArcTan(13.5/21.5) =ArcTan (0.627907) = 32.12 degrees, NOT 34.5 degrees

Gives you real confidence in what GIA does, doesn''t it, if they can screw up that bad in a patent application

And if you look at the Pavilion numbers
43.8% Pavilion Depth
42.0 Degree Pavilion Angle
That seems to work out to a fairly big, "very small culet", in fact > 2.8%, which is what you need at the flats of the culet octagon to get the numbers. That is a culet the width of a girdle, but then again, that is what halfassed ROUNDING does to you.

2.7% peak girdle thickness is within reasonability for a thin to medium, but who knows.


I don''t believe MY arithmatic is wrong. Am I missing something?

I even went back and looked at their dummy charts, for those who can''t use a calculator, in their new diamond grading Lab manual, and they have it correct there (within rounding error)

I think they need NEW FACT CHECKERS

or INVENTORS (EIGHT GIA EMPLOYEES with well over a Million a year in total salary, 2 PhD''s and "management" type and even techies).. look at the names on the patent, you would think one of them should have checked that part of the application before it was submitted.( And shouldn''t their patent attorney have done it also? That is one firm NOT to hire.)

Beetlejuice Boyajian once asked me what gives me the right to question the collective knowledge of 700 people at GIA, this is just another exmple of why I just smiled and said, "because they CAN be collectively WRONG"

But maybe

that is what they are trying to patent.. NEW GIA PROPRIETARY ARITHMATIC, that gives them the answers the client wanted ahead of time (supplied by the submitter, probably

) I wonder what their new paper says??? Anyone sanity check it lately? If it is screwed up like the patent application, I''ll send them a bill for consulting.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 1/23/2007 8:39:47 PM
Author: adamasgem
But maybe

that is what they are trying to patent.. NEW GIA PROPRIETARY ARITHMATIC, that gives them the answers the client wanted ahead of time (supplied by the submitter, probably

) I wonder what their new paper says??? Anyone sanity check it lately? If it is screwed up like the patent application, I''ll send them a bill for consulting.

(: