Lasers used in planning the cutting of diamonds

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/24/1/Lasers-used-in-planning-the-cutting-of-diamonds.aspx

This journal article may be interesting to those who would like to know more about the technology used in diamond cutting.
It also poses some interesting problems concerning patents. I know there are several PS regulars who have considerable experiance with IP and I would value their opinions on these patent issues. Thre are links to the relevant US patents.

 

[Big_G]

Garry,

Without getting into technological differences...

Sarin''s laser mapping patent (6,567,156) in section 1 cites the 20 year old U.S. patent 4,529,305 on its coverpage. Therefore, I beleive Sarin''s patent is presumed valid over this reference.

In section 2 (laser marking) it doesn''t appear that Sarin''s laser marking patent in your article has issued as an acutal patent. The link you provide is to a patent application publication.

Hope this helps.
-Greg

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/21/2005 8:21:19 PM
Author: Big_G

Garry,

Without getting into technological differences...

Sarin''s laser mapping patent (6,567,156) in section 1 cites the 20 year old U.S. patent 4,529,305 on its coverpage. Therefore, I beleive Sarin''s patent is presumed valid over this reference. can you explain how that works please Greg?

In section 2 (laser marking) it doesn''t appear that Sarin''s laser marking patent in your article has issued as an acutal patent. The link you provide is to a patent application publication. Actual Patent Granted sorry - you are correct Greg - try this one.

Hope this helps.
-Greg

 

[Big_G]

Date: 5/21/2005 9:47:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Sarin''s laser mapping patent (6,567,156) in section 1 cites the 20 year old U.S. patent 4,529,305 on its coverpage. Therefore, I beleive Sarin''s patent is presumed valid over this reference. can you explain how that works please Greg?

The manual of patent examining procedures (MPEP) states in section 2003 that "The presumption of validity is generally strong when prior art was before and considered by the Office and weak when it was not. See Bolkcom v. Carborundum Co., 523 F.2d 492, 498, 186 USPQ 466, 471 (6th Cir. 1975)."

The MPEP is available on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices website. It is a bit cumbersomb, but has a lot of information.