 Quarterbore's Forums |
|
|
|
|
Letter Requirement/U.S. Army Bayonet Procurement
Click on image to view smaller image
|
|
|
Author
|
|
Kurtis Dwight Davis
Member
Registered: August 2010
Location: Oklahoma countryside
Posts: 68
|
|
Tue June 28, 2011 11:06am
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 AM.
|
