Mothering › Forums › Natural Family Living › Activism › Activism Archives › Woo Hoo....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Woo Hoo....  

post #1 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:20pm
Thread Starter 
::::OING THE HAPPY DANCE:::::
post #2 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:23pm
well... gonna tell us why? or do we have to guess?
post #3 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:33pm
ummmm.....thats not a nice post....WAY more info needed
post #4 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:38pm
Hey you forgot the rest of your post..:LOL
post #5 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:42pm
Thread Starter 
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...AND&d=ptxt&s1='reusable+diaper'&OS="reusable+diaper"&RS="reusabl e+diaper"


Read it carefully, very very carefully. Each and every claim!!!!

Be sure to read them carefully and notice how they reference back to one another.

General example:
If on a patent xxx is violating claim 4
But then claim 4 references back to claim 1 the claims in claim 1 also apply to claim 4.

If that claim 4 is being violated but makes no reference to another claim, but claim 7 makes reference to claim 4 then the claims in 7 also apply and if they are not being violated claim 4 is not being violated and so on.

So read EVERYTHING that is claimed.

So we will have to have a
Be sure to bring all you cute with their and let's
post #6 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:45pm
Hey Linda..I wanna party but that link won't work for me.
post #7 of 32
6/17/03 at 1:47pm
maybe you should get some cool new fabrics and have a half price to Melanie sale to celebrate!
post #8 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:03pm
OK, so it referenced a bunch of other patents or something so does that mean it wasn't approved? I can't get past the legal jargon :LOL
post #9 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:06pm
Thread Starter 
No this is the actual APPROVED patent.
The abstract and claims are the approved ones.

The referenced diapers and stuff are things that their lawyer has said they have researched to make sure they are not violating an existing design. They really don't mean too much.

What means everything are the Claims and what is written in the claims. This is where someone would be violating something and they could sue.
post #10 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:07pm
United States Patent 6,579,273
Dupuy June 17, 2003

Reusable baby diaper having reusable absorbent insert

Try that link! I'm still reading.... lol
post #11 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:08pm
WOOHOO Thanks for the new link!
post #12 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:13pm
Ok so because your diaper employs Aplix fasteners then you are safe? That is super news!
post #13 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:16pm
Can you please spell itout for those of us simple minded folk(namely me) that don't "get" exactly what this means? :LOL I am assuming you can still make your dipes b/c you're doing a happy dance, but can you explain why?
post #14 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MelMel
maybe you should get some cool new fabrics and have a half price to Melanie sale to celebrate!
:LOL here! here!

Linda, I'm glad you've gotten some good news.
post #15 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MelMel
maybe you should get some cool new fabrics and have a half price to Melanie sale to celebrate!
I am with the other Mel's, sounds like a great idea

Yay Linda!! That is awsome news!
post #16 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:29pm
I'm terribly sleepy and reading that patent just made me eyes blur so I'm not quite sure what it means, BUT -- why oh why is the patent still claiming that you can replace the insert without removing the diaper from the baby? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Hygiene issues aside (because the fleece has been in contact with uring), it would physically uncomfortable for the baby and the person changing. It's totally misleading. The whole thing should be thrown out for that one sentence!
post #17 of 32
6/17/03 at 2:31pm
Um I'm a MeG and I will take some 1/2 price HHs.
If I am reading it right only the snap using pocket diaper makers need to buy a licsense or whatever she comes up with, right?
Tereson is coming back from vacation today. I'd love to hear her side as well.
post #18 of 32
6/17/03 at 3:00pm
ok maybe im confused but at the end of the pattern it says:

"Because many varying and different embodiments may be made within the scope of the inventive concept herein taught, and because many modifications may be made in the embodiments herein detailed in accordance with the descriptive requirement of the law, it is to be understood that the details herein are to be interpreted as illustrative and not in any limiting sense.
"

doesnt that mean that even if snaps are not used it doesnt matter - its still protected?
post #19 of 32
6/17/03 at 3:04pm
I had the same reading as Tiffany, I don't see how the aplix is a deal breaker.....

Could someone explain, please?
post #20 of 32
6/17/03 at 3:08pm

I don't think

that aplix or snaps make a hill of beans. I read it like the previous 2. The POCKET is protected. I would get your attorney to look it over before getting too happy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism Archives
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Natural Family Living › Activism › Activism Archives › Woo Hoo....