Lan-Cay No Longer in Business?

[Kurtis Dwight Davis]

Please excuse error regarding production. Concerning the "original" tang-rod configuration, if '420 prior art cites Dickerman and thus displays current M-9 construction, what distinguishes the M-9 hilt from said prior art? Answer: it is because the M-9 hilt does exactly what is specified in '420, complete with selective, repairable shear. The process of M-9 repair is ineffecient (compared to clevis), but nonetheless possible. Therefore current M-9 construction is simply inefficient application of '420 concept ("second best"). You can only patent an idea, not a device or some mechanical arrangement. If Davis is disallowed the rod, then so is Finn. If Finn is allowed the rod, same reason yields Davis a lawful prior claim.

"Having thus described the preferred embodiments with a certain degree of particularity, it is manifest that many changes can be made in the details of construction, arrangement, and fabrication of the elements and their uses without departing from the spirit and scope of this invention. Therefore it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the embodiment set forth herein for purposes of exemplification, but is to be limited only by the scope of the attached claims, including a full range of equivalents to which each element is entitled." (Patent 4,458,420) What exactly was approved, who had the idea 1st, and first approached the original manufacturer, and Army? Documents which answer these questions are lawful evidence regarding infringement, along with testing and '420 language. (ALL IGNORED BY ARMY "INVESTIGATION".)

Prior art cited by Davis FULLY ANTICIPATES the M-9 hilt, as per intent of '420 language. Such language further encompasses at least three other attachments, in addition to clevis' and rods. Clevis is displayed in '420 because in my opinion, it is most effecient--- but never said to be the only attachment, as will provide impact resistance conjoined with modularity. The invention requires BOTH characteristics arise from the same mechanical arrangement, as found in a hilt, and the patent allows substantial variation in the exact mechanical arrangement used. What '420 drawings teach to a person skilled in the art is also of particular importance. Every aspect of '420 was officially approved, and is presumed valid on its face. When Army generals fail sworn oath, such constitutional right becomes invalid, and "pearls before swine". In the end, Claim #1 either applies, or it does not. Destructive scientific testing proves that it does apply, therefore the M-9 infringes. (Patent '420 DOES offer the "original tang-rod", and it is considered second best of various possible arrangements.)

Please notice that claim #1 specifies a shear pin means, not a clevis. Destructive tests identify M-9 selective, repairable shear. Modularity is intuitive.

While abridgment of 1st amendment right prevented infringement proved in a court of law, neither did anyone prove to the contrary. (The door swings both ways.)

My sincere thanks for opportunity to participate---so nice to hear from you. And Davis alone produces an impact resistant, modular hilt for classic M-1 rifle, especially for your benefit.