Argentium patent and patent application

Jewelry Discussion
21 
What you wrote is interesting and sounds vaguely familiar.
However, prior art and prior inventive processes are different than
novel and obvious.

You’re badly mixing and mangling concepts. Prior art is what makes
things NON-novel, thus unpatentable, for certain—and likely why
your claims were withdrawn. Prior art (whether thing or process) MAY
also make something NON-obvious but that’s left to all the specifics
AFTER it’s concluded the thing or process is NOVEL–i.e., does not
appear in the prior art.

(The inventive process itself is a whole different subject and the
debate about what an “inventive step” is, or is not, is relevant to
European and perhaps many other countries patents but NOT to US, and
some other countries I believe, patents. In the US mere “discovery,”
along with all the other novel, non-obvious, useful, and statutory
requirements is all that is required.)

In my experience, James Binnion is correct in his reading of the
claim.

Well, certainly he’s correct in his reading of the claim, it’s for a
process of using AS that has long been used for other metals.
Where he is wrong is in his understanding of how many times Peter can
ask him to bring out his wallet.

Additionally, patent attorneys notwithstanding, claims are
essentially indefensible if the patent, including its claims can't
be understood by those experienced in the field of the patent.

There you would be wrong. The US law merely requires that the
specification be sufficient for one “skilled in the art” to do/make
the invention. There is no requirement that the party doing that
actually understand the claims or the surrounding law or any theories
of operation or whatever presented.

As for the patent itself, is metal alloy and more specifically,
silver alloy diffusion bonding specific to Argentium Silver? If
you all have been using the same methods to bond silver alloys
prior to Peter Gammon Johns invention, then you are either not
using the specific method he invented, or those claims in his
patent, are likely not enforceable. Based upon what I have seen
posted here, I suspect Mr. Johns may only find claims 8, 9, and 17
- 21 to be valid if the patent is challenged.

There you would be quite wrong. By law and long precedent any claim
which includes another granted claim in the patent (whether by
specific reference or by incorporating all elements as an independent
claim) MUST be considered both NOVEL and NON-OBVIOUS. Should the
claim with only the incorporated elements fall for reasons of novelty
or non-obviousness then the more restrictive (i.e., more elements)
claim MAY fall for non-obviousness. It almost certainly would if it
only recited an age-old method applied to a “new” (but now no longer
allowed as novel and non-obvious) metal. Reread that original post of
mine then let me know what you still don’t comprehend about this well
settled principle.

In the mean time, manufacture, distribution and sale of the
product directly to those principally involved in the fabrication
of jewelry could be argued as an acknowledgment of a limited
license. Nevertheless, if anyone is really concerned, why don't you
require the distributor's to provide a limited license as a
condition of the sale. At least to the extent of quantities
purchased. Also, you could

See my latest post to James Binnion, “limited license” SOUNDS nice
but it is A) not applicable here and B) you immediately twist it to
the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you want and what the law ALREADY gives AS
purchasers absent Peter mandating that they sign limiting contracts
with him. I strongly recommend against anyone taking your advice and
forking over the bucks to get an attorney to craft a “preemptive”
“limited license.” Settled patent law ALREADY, again given the
absence of Peter foisting a contract on you BEFORE your purchase,
gives AS purchasers purchasing via Peter’s authorized makers (or
importers, whatever) UNLIMITED LICENSE to do what they want with
their purchased ASeven to the extent of “infringing” one or many
more of Peter’s fully valid and enforceable claims.

Again, IANAL but I ain’t ignorant either and I sure as heck don’t
try to “make up” the law.

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of “Will It Sell? How to Determine If
Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable (Before Wasting Money on a
Patent)” Info Sites: www.willitsell.com www.inventorhome.com,
www.idearights.com www.taletyano.com www.booksforinventors.com

22 
I do not believe that purchasing the alloy from a licensed
producer automatically grants me the right to manufacturer a
product using the method claimed in claim 1. Are you saying that it
does?

No. Not automatically. But generally you’d KNOW when it didn’t and
that fact might even have the effect of your choosing NOT to
purchase. Peter is, I’m certain, well aware of that.

Given, as is apparently the INTENTIONAL case by Peter that you, as
purchaser are NOT required to sign a contract (nor are the
intermediaries between you and Peter) stipulating that the purchase
of AS metal is contingent and limited to only certain activities (or
specific activities are prohibited), then, by the Doctrine of First
Sale (I took the time to look it up, it’s also often called [some say
incorrectly] “Exhaustion of Patent Rights”) you have the right to do
anything you want with your purchased AS. The basis of this is
essentially two fold. First, standard contract law in which a sale is
a sale is a sale and once you OWN (not license or have been granted
explicit limited rights, but OWN) something the prior owner has no
additional claims on the goods. Any restrictions/limitations must be
made clear to you before actual purchase, the patent NOT standing in
as said notice, and the normal avenue for that would be contract. The
second is that by selling or permitting others to sell the monopoly
holder (i.e., Peter, the patentee) is indeed exercising his monopoly
for that particular sale and “exhausts” his monopoly over that
particular bar, piece, whatever, of AS.

So, unless you tell me that, in addition to your assumptions above,
that you are contractually accepting a limitation on what you can do
with the AS, then you are wrong in believing that the purchasing of
the alloy from a licensed producer does not grant you the right to
manufacture a product per claim 1, it DOES give you the right (absent
that contrary contract).

You’ll also sometimes hear the term “implied license” but, while it
seems to fit and even judges misuse it, it has it’s own specific
meaning in patent law and is not correctly applicable to this
scenario.

The order the claims are listed in on a patent makes no difference.
What the wide variety of claims do is what I said before, they give
Peter the opportunity to pick which claim he might want to assert
against infringers who BYPASSED his legal monopoly in countries where
he has a patent and, given his wisdom and the wisdom of his
attorneys, I’m sure he will pick the one(s) to attempt to assert that
have the biggest payoff for him. Again, reread my prior post and take
the time to think about the whys of the structure of the patent
system and its methods of operation.

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of “Will It Sell? How to Determine If
Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable (Before Wasting Money on a
Patent)” Info Sites: www.willitsell.com www.inventorhome.com,
www.idearights.com www.taletyano.com www.booksforinventors.com

23

Wonderful thread.

Has anybody bothered to email Peter Johns and ask him what this
patent is all about. We all know where he works and what his email
is, because of this tread and articles out on the net.

So way not ask him. People just love to debate issues. Ask him what
this all means to jewelers and why the diffusion process in
particular and not all the other known process for joining metal -
issue over.