Quarterbore.Net Forums


Home Forums Classifieds Photo Server FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

  Home · Search · Register  

Home » Main » Knife Photos Previous image   Slide Show   Next image
cowpens.jpg
battlefield-bayonet1.jpg
scan0002_756x800_.jpg
scan0002.jpg
scan0001.jpg
more

Prior Art/Davis/U.S. Patent 4,458,420
Click on image to view larger image

Photo Details
Kurtis Dwight Davis



Member

Registered: August 2010
Location: Oklahoma countryside
Posts: 68
users gallery
Prior art cited by Davis as per '420, so as to evidence language of the Davis patent intends inclusion of a rod, as used in the M-9
· Date: Sat August 27, 2011 · Views: 2383 · Filesize: 61.1kb, 279.2kb · Dimensions: 756 x 800 ·
Additional Info
Quick Rate: Poor Excellent
Keywords: Prior Art/Davis/U.S. Patent 4,458,420
Print View
Linked Thumbnail:  more


Author
Thread  
Kurtis Dwight Davis

Member

Registered: August 2010
Location: Oklahoma countryside
Posts: 68
Sat August 27, 2011 9:55am

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.
This user is offline
Click here to see this users profile Click here to Send this user a Private Message Find more posts by this user Visit this user's gallery  


Photo Sharing Gallery by PhotoPost
Copyright © 2007 All Enthusiast, Inc.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.