1

In reference to the patent: US8470388

COUNTRY - Patent Number United States - 8470388 Australia - 2013207081 Austria - EP2801242 China - CN104115561B Czech Republic - EP2801242 EPO - EP2801242 France - EP2801242 Germany - 60 2013 011 574.5 Italy - EP2801242 Mexico - MX336165 Netherlands - EP2801242 New Zealand - 628041 Poland - EP2801242 Singapore - 11201403300X Slovakia - EP2801242 South Africa - 2014/05710 Spain - EP2801242 Sweden - SE2801242 Switzerland - EP2801242 Turkey - 2016-GE-501932 United Kingdom - EP2801242

Normally this patent should be subject to a patentable subject matter, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, and prior disclosure.

It does not carry any added propositions of novelty at all.

This "inventor" has not just derived the invention from someone else, but also used information from abandoned and expired patents that have been abandoned probably due to prior art.

They did not "invent the materials" nor the "methodology for EL lights", nor the EL technology as such.

Prior abandoned and expired patents: 2002: http://www.google.sc/patents/US20030129297 (anybody can use the content of this BASF patent. probably abandoned by BASF due to prior art.)

One of the earliest EL paint adopters (2006) is the Original-XTRA DYNAMICS-Lackschicht prozess. http://www.xtra-dynamics.com/EL-Beschichtung.html

Prior art that has been copied and translated (2007)https://google.com/patents/WO2007112715A1?cl=en&hl=de (2009)https://google.com/patents/DE102009020191A1?cl=en

Prior art: http://web.archive.org/web/20111119171026/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/md.static/faltblatt_xtralight.pdf

Winner of the NoAE innovation contest in 2008: http://web.archive.org/web/20091106140538/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/winner-of-the-noae-innovation-contest.n3.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20111114162842/http://www.xtra-dynamics.com:80/el-paint.en.htm

In addition, there is this prior thesis published in 2012: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf

Maca
  • 6,178
  • 13
  • 24
user19473
  • 21
  • 3
  • how can this been granted? It hasn't been. –  Jul 27 '17 at 09:06
  • Your link clearly states the document is a patent application. Why do you think it has been granted? – Eric S Jul 27 '17 at 14:29
  • You may want to get worked up about these actually issued patents by the same inventors: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2801242B1/en, https://patents.google.com/patent/US8470388B1/en – Eric S Jul 27 '17 at 15:03
  • If somebody wants to add an answer, mention tpos please. –  Jul 27 '17 at 16:31
  • You could edit the question to ask about preventing the grant of this app. –  Jul 27 '17 at 16:35
  • I did edit the question with "why is the multiple prior art not preventing the grant of it?" Prior art that has been copied and translated (2007)link(2009)link – user19473 Jul 28 '17 at 16:40
  • Surely the answer is simply that the examiner thought it to be allowable over the prior art they had at hand: can anything more really be said? As such, I'm not sure what the question we could answer is at this stage. – Maca Jul 29 '17 at 03:03
  • 1
    The links lead to a patent issued in the USA in 2013. Not sure why it is not considered "granted". – Upnorth Jul 29 '17 at 03:37
  • The “grant” is instrumental of infringement of intellectual property rights, breach of contract or of any other right, towards this prior thesis published in 2012. http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/56133/1/WRAP_THESIS_Middleton_2012.pdf The “grant” is instrumental to Plagiarism. Regarding the examiner thought it to be allowable over the “prior art they had at hand at that time” simply has not considered or missed the insights of the full extent available on prior art – user19473 Jul 29 '17 at 04:20

0 Answers0