On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Steve Stallings <[email protected]> wrote: > With patents all that matters is the claims. Usually > there is only one real claim and the rest of the > "claims" are derivative of the first claim. > > In this case it looks like claim number one is very > specific to a device that utilizes 3 design elements > together. My guess is that the ball return path inside > the worm is the truly new element.
I feel like I've seen this kind of worm drive before which would mean that the patent is probably invalid. Thanks for looking at the claims, most patents are written in such a way as to try to obfuscate what is being claimed. This person seems to have done quite a bit of research: http://www.unicopter.com/1509.html Not sure if any of the listed patents are still valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60135991&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
