Revolver mode

inkman996 · June 24th, 2011, 09:18 AM

Yes exactly.

Printwizard · June 24th, 2011, 09:21 AM

Programming the order of which heads print and flash etc over multiple rotations in one direction, the anatol step back is programming CW and CCW revolutions to use the same screen instead of making another screen or going right around twice. Really if you have to hit a print twice with a flash between it makes little difference to go around the same Cw or CCW and just do another revolution rather than all the back and forwards.....

Promo Print · June 25th, 2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Printwizard

Programming the order of which heads print and flash etc over multiple rotations in one direction, the anatol step back is programming CW and CCW revolutions to use the same screen instead of making another screen or going right around twice. Really if you have to hit a print twice with a flash between it makes little difference to go around the same Cw or CCW and just do another revolution rather than all the back and forwards.....

Ok, so both systems is something that screen printers were using much before auto was invented. I am wondering is it possible to have patent on something like that?
Does Anatol have patent on Step back?
In case of revolver, does M&R have patent on program, the way how program is written? Or they have patent on whole motion?
If they have patent on how program is written that that is ok, but if they have patent on whole motion, than I am quite sure that any old average Joe screen printer could sue as he was using same motion on carousel printing somewhere from his basement long before M&R.
Also, if they have patent on motion, could it be that I can patent the way that squeegee and flood bar moves by pneumatic or AC drive and charge auto manufacturers for using my patent?

preston · June 25th, 2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Promo Print

Ok, so both systems is something that screen printers were using much before auto was invented. I am wondering is it possible to have patent on something like that?
Does Anatol have patent on Step back?
In case of revolver, does M&R have patent on program, the way how program is written? Or they have patent on whole motion?
If they have patent on how program is written that that is ok, but if they have patent on whole motion, than I am quite sure that any old average Joe screen printer could sue as he was using same motion on carousel printing somewhere from his basement long before M&R.
Also, if they have patent on motion, could it be that I can patent the way that squeegee and flood bar moves by pneumatic or AC drive and charge auto manufacturers for using my patent?

Cannot answer most of that but I do know if you study the patent and then improve on it you can patent the improvement. This does not mean you could legally use the base patent but you could stop the base patent owner from doing any similar improvements without paying you.

You really do not even need to patent your improvements but it would be a little harder to get some cash. Just draw up the art, get it notarized to prove the date. Then when someone improves their patent (a way of extending it) you show them your art and say buy it or get the patent revoked.

I do know you cannot patent common knowledge (unless corporate america got the Gov. to change the rules). This should mean that the concept of the revolver mode cannot be patented as printers where manually doing this on automatics long before the patent. So I would assume (and I am only guessing here) that the patent is for the machine to internally contain a program to do it.

srimonogramming · June 25th, 2011, 10:34 AM

It doesn't matter that manual printers were doing something similar to this many years before. The fact is that it is a program for an automatic to sequence when to operate the printheads. If the manual printer didn't apply for the patent and have it involving the use of an automatic, then you have no argument. You talk about improvements to the patent, then you talk about prior art, so which one do you want to argue here, you can't have it both ways.

preston · June 25th, 2011, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srimonogramming

It doesn't matter that manual printers were doing something similar to this many years before. The fact is that it is a program for an automatic to sequence when to operate the printheads. If the manual printer didn't apply for the patent and have it involving the use of an automatic, then you have no argument. You talk about improvements to the patent, then you talk about prior art, so which one do you want to argue here, you can't have it both ways.

That is why I said I do not think the patent is for the concept but for the machine having the program in it to do it. I say this because I know for a fact that automatic press operators where doing this manually (by flipping switches) years before the patent for the program was made so this means the concept is common knowledge and not patentable.

Spider-Machines · June 25th, 2011, 11:21 AM

From the research that I have done ... There is plenty of "prior art" from credible sources (nuf said)

Promo Print · June 25th, 2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by preston

That is why I said I do not think the patent is for the concept but for the machine having the program in it to do it. I say this because I know for a fact that automatic press operators where doing this manually (by flipping switches) years before the patent for the program was made so this means the concept is common knowledge and not patentable.

So what would happened if I would have auto press and decide to make my own program to do exactly same thing? That way I am not using M&R program but my own.
This is all theory that I am debating as I don't know muck about revolver patent.

srimonogramming · June 26th, 2011, 11:03 AM

We don't run many jobs around more than one revolution, but when we do, I manually do a revolver mode while our press is running and can turn printheads on and off easily. Others I've seen try to do this struggle and can't quite keep up with the correct sequencing and end up printing colors at the wrong time. With all that being said, I think it's still a patent(able) device, it doesn't matter that people were doing it, manually or on an auto, they didn't apply for a patent for the program to control the actions so that's not really going to fly in court. That won't stand up in court as prior art is what I'm trying to say. I've got my cousin looking at this in his spare time, he is a patent attorney so I'll likely have a pretty rock solid opinion on this after I talk to him sometime this week.

RWB · June 26th, 2011, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by srimonogramming

We don't run many jobs around more than one revolution, but when we do, I manually do a revolver mode while our press is running and can turn printheads on and off easily. Others I've seen try to do this struggle and can't quite keep up with the correct sequencing and end up printing colors at the wrong time. With all that being said, I think it's still a patent(able) device, it doesn't matter that people were doing it, manually or on an auto, they didn't apply for a patent for the program to control the actions so that's not really going to fly in court. That won't stand up in court as prior art is what I'm trying to say. I've got my cousin looking at this in his spare time, he is a patent attorney so I'll likely have a pretty rock solid opinion on this after I talk to him sometime this week.

Ask your "cousin" to define "prior art" in other countries -and- how that might effect the enforceability of a US Patent ???