At 10:39 AM 2/7/5, Mark S Bilk wrote: >He's had a number of companies interested in it, but none of them >has met his demand of $10,000,000 up front and a major share of >the profits, without which he won't release any of the material, >although he will allow people to bring their own equipment to >his home and test his samples. The details of the manufacturing >process are not revealed in the patent (which has expired by now).
A patent must provide enough information that one skilled in the art can obtain the utility of the patent. Failure to reveal such information invalidates the patent, and actually should prevent its granting in the first place if noticed by the examiner. This is now a moot point if the patent expired. In general, you just can't have it both ways. You can't hide some aspect of the method of construction or manufacture that is essential to fully obtaining the utility claimed, and still expect to get a patent. A patent is essentially a *full* disclosure made in the public interest, in return for some number of years of a monopoly while the license fees are maintained. There is a duty to describe the best implimentation(s) known at the time. Regards, Horace Heffner
