Quarterbore.Net Forums

Home · Search · Register

» Number of comments : 84 - viewing 10 Per Page

Last Comment by pjbusche@newnorth.net - Posted Date: Sat October 1, 2011 2:42pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 432 x 424 Views: 3708 Filesize: 10kb

I really like the looks of this one. Can you tell me any more about the 7mm ARk? I think it would be pretty good as a deer-hunting cartridge. Rating: 10.00

Photo Details: "7mm ARk" by kurtz - Posted Date: Fri October 22, 2010 - Rating: 10.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue August 30, 2011 10:24am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 469 x 800 Views: 1446 Filesize: 305kb

This illustration derives from the Griffin Patent, # 1480, dated 1869 and issued in London, England. Though Davis does not cite this particular art in '420, it was studied while composing patent language. This information is offered so as to further prove Davis' intent that a connecting rod could be used to accomplish invention described in Patent 4,458,420. Simple modification of Griffin's rod, as brought about by changing threads to female rather than male, does not amount to invention---no change(s) obvious to those skilled in the art can be claimed as invention. In concept, it is much the same as Dickerman, which is in fact "cited".

Photo Details: "" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Sat August 27, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Sat August 27, 2011 9:55am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 756 x 800 Views: 2382 Filesize: 279kb

Here gentlemen, is concrete proof that patent 4,458,420 fully addresses use of a "rod, tang connecting" for use as a shear pin means (as per claim #1, 4,458,420). The specially shaped tang of Dickerman is almost identical to current M-9. Dickerman tang/rod allows '420 to fully anticipate the current M-9 construction. All prior art cited by Davis comes about due to his free choice, and is carefully selected so as to define the invention of patent 4,458,420. Not one single portion of the document was forced upon me, including the exact title. Every bit of it represents free, intentional choice, so as to adequately describe and protect invention. It is generally understood that a patent document defines what is invented, not the opposite. Here is evidence that Davis associated the M-9 hilt assembly with impact resistance & modularity, long before Charles Albert Finn ever even thought about it. Whatever entitles Finn to such rod, establishes Davis' prior claim, especially if such M-9 rod is proven to function according to Davis' clevis, and descriptions of it. Destructive scientific tests are required in this regard. Adequate results of such tests have been sent to Super Moderator Bill Porter (via U.S. mail, over one year ago). Finn cites Davis in his '356, meaning the M-9 cannot selectively shear, without infringing Davis, who is equally entitled to Dickerman---as means of selective, repairable shear. Since the current M-9 DOES provide selective, repairable shear, conjoined with modularity, it infringes Davis. (In other words, Davis is entitled to have '420 lawfully applied to M-9 operation, and when done with destructive testing, claim #1 fully applies.) (The M-9/Finn patent cites Davis---therefore the M-9 cannot provide selective, repairable shear, without infringing Davis '420.) It is to be further understood that M-9 configu ration (method of construction) simultaneously provides required modularity from those same elements providing impact resistance. Technical Note From Davis Patent Language: "THE DEVICE CAN INVOLVE ANY OF A COMBINATION OF ELEMENTS ALSO WELL KNOWN IN THE ART." (What did the Patent Office actually approve of, and what art was Davis referring to???) Please be advised additional information concerning U.S. Patent 4,458,420 is available at www.kurtisddavis.com ; menu option "State-of-the-Art" is especially relevant.

Photo Details: "Prior Art/Davis/U.S. Patent 4,458,420" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Sat August 27, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Sport Polo Shirts - Posted Date: Sat July 16, 2011 2:07am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 936 x 259 Views: 6974 Filesize: 86kb

It's not genuinely a query that pursuits me getting truthful mate. you understand the very first term I mentioned when I saw the logo for that website was a superb start I believe. I can't wait around both . ^^ I also want to have a match on the appearance is a T-shirt with it

Photo Details: "4th Generation Phrobis M9 Bayonet - Narrow Font" by Quarterbore - Posted Date: Wed December 20, 2006 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Thu June 30, 2011 6:18am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 826 x 1100 Views: 2757 Filesize: 112kb

Who was the first person to approach the original M-9 manufacturer with a patented, impact resistant, modular hilt, "designed for the purpose of fighting"? Look at the date(s), consider the M-9 history, and answer this: was it Davis or someone else? Please be advised additional information concerning U.S. Patent 4,458,420 is available at www.kurtisddavis.com Appropriate response to this presentation may be found at the following link:http://www.buckknives.com/press/charles%20theodore%20buck%20/

Photo Details: "correspondence/original M-9 manufacturer" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Mon January 24, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Thu June 30, 2011 6:16am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 847 x 1100 Views: 2375 Filesize: 71kb

Who was the first person to approach the U.S. Army, and the original M-9 manufacturer, with a "state-of-the-art", impact resistant, modular hilt??? Please consider the date of this correspondence, and compare it to letter from the original M-9 manufacturer, and the date of the U.S. Army "Letter Requirement". ("state-of-the art" means patented subject matter) Please be advised that this, and most all other information posted this website, was completely ignored by official Army Administrative Hearing, as per valid claim of infringement. Please be advised more information concerning U.S. Patent 4,458,420 is available at www.kurtisddavis.com

Photo Details: "Correspondence; U.S. Army; U.S. Patent 4,458,420" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Mon June 13, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 12:52pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 618 x 800 Views: 2108 Filesize: 221kb

Letter Requirement (LR) final page, bearing signatures of two U.S. Army Generals. The document outlines a schedule of events, beginning in the first quarter of 1986, thus establishing the Letter Requirement was completed during 1985. This final page also establishes that the USMC expressed interest in a new bayonet, thus evidencing extensive discussion, leading up to the creation of the "LR". In other words, many top ranking generals were talking about a major innovation regarding bayonet hilts, even when Davis alone offered such technology. This entire "Letter Requirement", and all that it establishes, was essentially ignored by U.S. Army Administrative Hearing, as were all other documents herein displayed. Moreover, U.S. Patent 4,458,420 was improperly interpreted and never fully applied to fully assembled M-9 hilt operation. More information concerning U.S. Patent 4,458,420 is available at www.kurtisddavis.com

Photo Details: "Letter Requirement" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 12:50pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 866 x 1099 Views: 2085 Filesize: 169kb

Section 5 this page emphasizes durability for the first of three instances. Modular design supports durability, through providing parts replacement/interchange. This document was generated by the U.S. Army aprox. 90 days after '420 was offered via West Point, at such time as Davis alone represented "state-of-the-art" (patent) classification. This document was obtained as per the Freedom of Information Act, at the suggestion of counsel. Likely the "LR" is the first written expression of the Army's intention to procure a new bayonet---this document basically started the process. "Letter Requirement" must not be confused with original production contract. Original M-9 contract specified extensive scientific testing, as would verify compliance with minimum requirements, and otherwise define exact operation. Numerous requests for such lawfully required test results were made, as per FOIA---THE U.S. ARMY FAILED REPEATEDLY TO PROVIDE ANY TEST RESULTS WHATSOEVER, AND IGNORED THOSE RESULTS INDEPENDENTLY SUBMITTED BY DAVIS. More information concerning U.S. Patent 4,458,420 is available at www.kurtisddavis.com

Photo Details: "Letter Requirement/U.S Army Bayonet Procurement" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 12:40pm

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 844 x 1099 Views: 2054 Filesize: 197kb

Section e this page equates to requirement for impact resistance, within about 90 days of Davis' offer of '420. Separation of blade from handle (hilt) has been characteristic of military knives for a very long time. A classic example may be obtained through study of William Washington at the Battle of Cowpens (Revolutionary War). Washington chased British commander Banastre Tarleton from the field. While closing in upon horseback, Tarleton and two officers wheeled their horses to give fight. Washington struck at Tarleton, only to have his sword break just near the hilt. An officer at Tarleton's side attempted to saber Washington, but was shot through his sword arm. A second of Tarleton's officers attempted slash, but one of Washington's men deflected the blow. In a final effort, Tarleton attempted slash, but Washington deflected with his broken sword. Tarleton then fired his pistol, but missed, wounding Washington's horse. The British officers then made good their cowardly retreat---having lost a thousand men, and their supplies. (All participants in the sword fight were mounted on horses; Washington's conduct defines the very Spirit of America.) This instance of separating blade from hilt likely affected the remainder of the American Revolution.

Photo Details: "Letter Requirement/U.S. Army Bayonet Procurement" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

Last Comment by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 11:06am

[ Post a Comment ]

Dimensions: 600 x 800 Views: 2205 Filesize: 339kb

Please note final paragraph, this page, declares "state-of-the-art" technology is available for an impact resistant, modular hilt, at a time when Davis alone possessed such status, as per '420. This statement was made aprox. 90 days after Davis offered "state-of-the-art technology" to the Army, via West Point. Section r clearly defines requirement for modular design, and section q reiterates desire for durability. (Finn's patent was not even filed until March 1987, and did not issue until April 1989---reference to "state-of-the-art" could not possibly include Finn, as per the Letter Requirement.) (Letter Requirement was completed November 1985.) Other documents, not presented, will prove that Davis formally filed claim of infringement, before Finn even filed a patent application, let alone got one issued. All this information, as well as other evidence of infringement, was completely disregarded by official "Administrative Hearing", as conducted by the U.S. Army. Results of Army "Administrative Hearing" lack force of law and are non- binding---"Administrative Hearing" results are REJECTED on such basis. Davis and 4,458,420 have no obligation to take "no" for an answer. First amendment right to petition was ABRIDGED, meaning court hearing did not validate claim---BY THE SAME TOKEN, NEITHER DID COURT HEARING DISPROVE DAVIS' VALID CLAIM OF INFRINGEMENT. More information concerning Patent 4,458,420 is available at www.kurtisddavis.com

Photo Details: "Letter Requirement/U.S. Army Bayonet Procurement" by Kurtis Dwight Davis - Posted Date: Tue June 28, 2011 - Rating: 0.00

« Prev Page · Next Page »