In Reply to: Re: Patentable claim posted by Mark Seaton on June 28, 2002 at 10:39:50:
Hi Mark!You wrote:
> > I understand the technology reasonably well, but Tom Danley is the
> > one to address your question directly. I'll talk to him and see if
> > I can get an appropriate answer.Thanks - Just curiousity, really. It is always interesting to see what claims have been considered unique by the PTO, especially with something like a loudspeaker. One cannot patent the motor, the conical horn, the crossover, the multiplicity of drivers used, or the splitting of signals to facilitate phasing between them. So even if a guy were to find a better way to do these things, there would still need to be something else claimed for the PTO to issue a patent. It would be interesting for me to see which one was used.
Thanks!
Wayne
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 06/28/0211:47:47 06/28/02 (91)
- Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 14:03:23 06/28/02 (90)
- quarter wave resonance? - Tom Dawson 11:47:26 07/1/02 (4)
- Re: quarter wave resonance? - hancock 11:47:42 07/4/02 (3)
- Re: quarter wave resonance? - Wayne Parham 15:03:07 07/4/02 (2)
- Re: quarter wave resonance? - Mark Seaton 12:47:29 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: quarter wave resonance? - Wayne Parham 16:16:14 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:13:51 06/28/02 (82)
- Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 09:10:20 06/29/02 (81)
- flawwed logic - Sam P. 17:50:08 06/29/02 (2)
- Re: flawwed logic - hancock 01:27:18 06/30/02 (0)
- Re: flawed examination - Mark Seaton 19:58:22 06/29/02 (0)
- Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:46:54 06/29/02 (77)
- From Tom Danley - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 10:17:35 07/2/02 (76)
- Re: From Tom Danley - Re: Patentable claim - Tom Dawson 09:57:22 07/3/02 (0)
- From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 15:41:48 07/2/02 (74)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:29:29 07/3/02 (56)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:40:11 07/3/02 (52)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 11:50:41 07/4/02 (47)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:23:45 07/4/02 (46)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 16:48:59 07/4/02 (45)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:49:49 07/4/02 (44)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 10:45:57 07/5/02 (14)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:10:52 07/5/02 (13)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 14:49:43 07/5/02 (12)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - str8aro 19:49:25 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 00:01:03 07/6/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:28:43 07/5/02 (9)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 16:21:49 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:08:32 07/7/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 09:00:14 07/6/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:23:07 07/6/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 18:26:34 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 01:39:22 07/7/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - tomservo 16:55:53 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:46:26 07/7/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 03:20:37 07/5/02 (29)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:38:48 07/5/02 (28)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:39:56 07/5/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:07:08 07/5/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 14:19:15 07/5/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:47:03 07/5/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 13:28:59 07/6/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:09:45 07/6/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:35:47 07/5/02 (21)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:49:15 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 14:14:09 07/5/02 (19)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:55:31 07/5/02 (18)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 09:18:20 07/6/02 (8)
- Change your mind again? - Wayne Parham 23:10:09 07/14/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 15:05:37 07/6/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Magnetar 08:42:59 07/7/02 (5)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 02:01:00 07/8/02 (4)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 04:28:53 07/8/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 12:45:35 07/8/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 14:28:22 07/8/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:37:21 07/8/02 (0)
- hard not to remember "the king of comb filtering"(nt) - Sam P. 07:10:54 07/6/02 (8)
- Re: LOL - Magnetar 09:21:07 07/6/02 (7)
- Misconceptions - Mark Seaton 10:34:57 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: Misconceptions Department of redundancy Department - tomservo 12:01:42 07/4/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 09:58:37 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 15:41:04 07/4/02 (0)
- LOL, using the phrase "linear phase response" - Sam P. 15:10:57 07/3/02 (2)
- Re: LOL, using the phrase "linear phase response" - hancock 08:39:22 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: LOL, using the phrase "linear phase response" - Wayne Parham 14:39:54 07/4/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 08:24:59 07/3/02 (16)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:41:39 07/3/02 (15)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 17:39:04 07/3/02 (14)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 22:24:00 07/3/02 (13)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - DanWiggins 08:09:31 07/4/02 (12)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 09:57:06 07/4/02 (11)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 13:03:15 07/4/02 (10)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 22:53:34 07/4/02 (7)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 01:34:40 07/5/02 (6)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Mark Seaton 12:08:51 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 16:59:24 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - dwiggins@adireaudio.com 08:54:53 07/5/02 (3)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 11:23:20 07/5/02 (2)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - hancock 13:47:11 07/5/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 17:09:41 07/5/02 (0)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Andre Jute 13:59:04 07/4/02 (1)
- Re: From Wayne Parham - Re: Patentable claim - Wayne Parham 14:41:47 07/4/02 (0)
- How do I model 4 midrange drivers as 1 at the point where they enter the horn? - TimgG 14:30:55 06/28/02 (1)
- Re: How do I model 4 midrange drivers as 1 at the point where they enter the horn? - str8aro 17:42:35 06/28/02 (0)