Robert Rolf wrote:
>
> Yes, that form would appear not be covered by THIS patent. The claims
> make no mention of a single sided version, and I think that's how the
> test gear was done.
>
> There are quite a number of 'planar induct*' US patents (>38). I
> didn't read them all or search other countries.


I think the US patent office have a bad habit of granting
patents that they have no legal right to, even things that
have already been done and are even on sale in other countries.
I suppose it is an attempt to bolster US commercial interests,
many times when there is a grey area and the patent would not
be granted on the UK or here in Australia someone in the US
can still patent it. The patent doesn't guarantee legal
ownership, it is just a record of a claim of ownership.

If I copied your great idea and rushed down the patent office
and registered it before you, it doesn't mean I am the
rightful owner of that idea. The patent just makes it easier
for me to screw you. And lots of people in the US like
screwing each other (no offense to those many other US
citizens with morals). :o)
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body