Woo Hoo.... - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:20 PM - Thread Starter
 
detergentdiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
::::OING THE HAPPY DANCE:::::
detergentdiva is offline  
#2 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:23 PM
 
*~*SewHappyNow*~*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 2,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
well... gonna tell us why? or do we have to guess?

Karen Mommy of McKenna 2003 & Alysson 2004 homebirth.jpg Expecting stork-girl.gif an early Christmas Present
*~*SewHappyNow*~* is offline  
#3 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:33 PM
 
MelMel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Land of the Cleves
Posts: 1,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
ummmm.....thats not a nice post....WAY more info needed
MelMel is offline  
#4 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:38 PM
 
sweetfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dayton
Posts: 4,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey you forgot the rest of your post..:LOL
sweetfeet is offline  
#5 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
detergentdiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
detergentdiva is offline  
#6 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:45 PM
 
sweetfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dayton
Posts: 4,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Hey Linda..I wanna party but that link won't work for me.
sweetfeet is offline  
#7 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 01:47 PM
 
MelMel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Land of the Cleves
Posts: 1,913
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
maybe you should get some cool new fabrics and have a half price to Melanie sale to celebrate!
MelMel is offline  
#8 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:03 PM
 
LuvMy2Kidz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down
Posts: 3,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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
LuvMy2Kidz is offline  
#9 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
detergentdiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
detergentdiva is offline  
#10 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:07 PM
 
fullofgrace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New England
Posts: 16,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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

Wife of 1. Mom of 3. Conquering disability challenges, one achievement at a time.
 

fullofgrace is offline  
#11 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:08 PM
 
sweetfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dayton
Posts: 4,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
WOOHOO Thanks for the new link!
sweetfeet is offline  
#12 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:13 PM
 
sweetfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dayton
Posts: 4,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok so because your diaper employs Aplix fasteners then you are safe? That is super news!
sweetfeet is offline  
#13 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:16 PM
 
LuvMy2Kidz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down
Posts: 3,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
LuvMy2Kidz is offline  
#14 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:20 PM
 
Melaniee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: California
Posts: 3,740
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Melaniee is offline  
#15 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:26 PM
 
MammaMel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 93
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
MammaMel is offline  
#16 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:29 PM
 
Very Snoofly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: NC
Posts: 318
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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!
Very Snoofly is offline  
#17 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 02:31 PM
 
sweetfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dayton
Posts: 4,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
sweetfeet is offline  
#18 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:00 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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?
PatchyMama is offline  
#19 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:04 PM
 
Encyclogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I had the same reading as Tiffany, I don't see how the aplix is a deal breaker.....

Could someone explain, please?
Encyclogirl is offline  
#20 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:08 PM
 
mommytomy4kids's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Buried under a pile of vibrant yarn
Posts: 794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
mommytomy4kids is offline  
#21 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:09 PM
 
PatchyMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Viva Las Vegas
Posts: 5,611
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Tereson is coming back from vacation today. I'd love to hear her side as well.
I saw her post to the BTL list last night.. so maybe she will post over here soon with her own thoughts and stuff
PatchyMama is offline  
#22 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:21 PM
 
flminivanmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 7,090
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
actually I take that paragraph to mean Tereson can make whatever changes she needs to make to her product and her patent is still protected. ie going from round tabs to pointy or going from 12 snaps to 16 snaps. (the drawing shows round tabs and the patent mentions "a dozen snaps")

I'm Andrea - I have three boys - 12 year old twins & an 11 year old

flminivanmama is offline  
#23 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:22 PM
 
sweetfeet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dayton
Posts: 4,444
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Oh I am going to go and check the BTL list thanks for letting us know. I do want to hear her side as I believe every story has 2 sides and it isn't fair to not want to know the other side.
sweetfeet is offline  
#24 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:23 PM
 
intensity_too's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Now in Iowa
Posts: 2,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just curious what the BTL list is?

Jaime
intensity_too is offline  
#25 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
detergentdiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It has been gone over by an attorney.

What has to be violated is the claims. The descriptions merely more detailed info on the claims.
To prove a violation you must do so by using the claims 1-13.

But is it just a matter of snaps. It is not. There are several other statements which make enough of a difference that we (my attorney and I) are very confident about.

If in fact it does go to court then there will be a lot of issues that will be brought up which can in fact have portions of the patent proved to be false. It is not unusual for portions of a patent to be dis-qualified after it has been approved. It is also not unusual for a patent to be pulled.

Furthermore, the talk about the prior art not mattering if it was made out of the US is baloney. Prior art can come from your trashcan as long as you can PROVE it was made first. It does not matter if it was made here or some other country. Prior art is just that, Prior art.
I'm sure that this will be one of those cases for the books. A case over diapers... Something that our babies poop in... I know my attorney laughed when we first talked about it, I'm sure any judge would do the same at first glance.
detergentdiva is offline  
#26 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:28 PM
 
mommytomy4kids's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Buried under a pile of vibrant yarn
Posts: 794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Because it was just published.

I really want to hear from MOE. Maybe I will email her. I really would not be too excited as I do not read it that way and I have been around the patent block before.
mommytomy4kids is offline  
#27 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:37 PM
 
Rebecca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: NH
Posts: 2,661
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Ohhhh I'm so confused.....
Rebecca is offline  
#28 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:38 PM - Thread Starter
 
detergentdiva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,497
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My attorney does have a copy of the published patent and has gone over it. There are still a few more issues that we will be discussing but the main issue we a very confident about.

The patent block is not a good one at all and I know this.

Most people do not even realize that if in fact I am violating anything I have no problem making a change, already have one designed and tested just in case that we are toying with actually starting to produce now.

Everyone can read and come to their own conclusion to the actual patent. I have come to my conclusion with the help of an attorney. If my attorney says to me tomorrow that after further inspection he feels a change should be made then I will do so if he says continue on with what you are doing this is what I will do.

But the bottom line is if the claims are read then it is very easy to see that the claims are not being violated, not only with the snap member issue but with several other statements and claims.

All this being said, I can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that if in fact we make the change that has been worked on it will not because someone has "made us" but in fact because we want to.
detergentdiva is offline  
#29 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:39 PM
 
lifetapestry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ankle Deep In Paradise
Posts: 2,015
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think you have exactly the right attitude, Linda. You aren't scared off simply because someone has waved a patent in your face and claimed that you are violating it. Let MOE go to the costly expense of trying to prove that you have infringed upon their patent -- this is a pretty difficult legal standard to prove and the burden is on MOE to do so. Even if MOE wins, they can only get an injunction (that you are ordered to stop making the infringing product) and damages (which are difficult to prove, and include things like lost profits, which only accrue once the patent is public, i.e. from today on).

People who own patents sometimes use them to force others into buying licenses from them, by threatening them with legal action if you don't. I hope none of the pocket making WAHM's give into these threats (unless they are truly coping FB).

Karla
lifetapestry is offline  
#30 of 32 Old 06-17-2003, 03:48 PM
 
Kermit's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The Muppet Show
Posts: 4,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
hmmm. If Linda (or her lawyer) is right, then Tereson has been sorely misled to believe that the claims are not limiting. It sounds as if there is a disclaimer there that says the claims are NOT limiting. You would think the patent would not be approved if it contradicted legal rules. You'd also think that one could not patent something they have not actually created (a diaper that can be changed withought taking it off the baby).
At least her product as decribed by the claims will be protected and the money spent won't be a total loss to her.
Kermit is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off