Comstock Patent

[kirkdekalb]

I found this today.  http://www.google.com/patents/US9204627

You guys may want to read it well. It appears Mr. Comstock now has a patent on features you have been using for years and traps whose pictures you have posted. He is now  the inventor. Maybe I am wrong. Looks very similar or almost Identical to others working traps from your state, I saw posted on the internet many years ago prior to his application.

I am just glad I took pictures of the stuff we worked on as partners and have an agreed upon user agreement. I am also tickled that I took pictures of other traps of mine I sold prior to his application that have similar features as his claims and that the workers and customers are still around to verify.

I just thought it would not happen because of the others with almost identical designs. I thought the examiner would consider it prior art with so many traps made and pictures on the net.

Congratulations Jim Comstock.

[JakeLand]

It won't show me any images

[Fl0und3rz]

Images here.

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09204627&IDKey=A004227B05CF%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect2%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPALL%2526S1%3D9204627.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F9204627%2526RS%3DPN%2F9204627

[JakeLand]

Thanks for the pic but not impressed  by his design  there's better and easier to make and fine tune then his and I guarantee cheaper ! He is what he is and more power to him for  being THE inventor 

[bugs n bones]

Most effective otter, beaver, swim thru on the market..

[JakeLand]

Your right they are good BUT not $250 plus shipping good I can build 5 swim throughs for that price

[ouchfoss]

I can't get the pictures to load on either page.

[Humptulips]

Just my opinion but it bears no resemblance to the majority of the swim throughs being made by guys in WA. One guys traps do use the same pattern IMO.
I do not think mine do.
We will see in about a year.

[RadSav]

I just thought it would not happen because of the others with almost identical designs. I thought the examiner would consider it prior art with so many traps made and pictures on the net.

The USPTO appears to no longer be interested in prior art.  Only in the money.  Over the past ten years I have seen patents repackaged with the same wording and pictures as some 30 years prior.  Not one single mention to the previous patent or inventor.  They are not worth the paper they are printed on.  USPTO doesn't seem to care.  It is no longer their obligation to recognize prior art.  It is now the obligation of the patent attorney and the designer to decide if they have or desire a worthless patent.

Unfortunately a good number of innocent designers only find this out after spending large sums of money fighting a legal battle they believe is theirs to win.  Only to find out they should never have been allowed to receive the patent in the first place.  Sad that the USPTO has come to this.  But like all government agencies now...honesty and integrity are no longer held in high regard.

[ouchfoss]

I got the second link to work.

Looks to me like the door locking setup is really similar to the havahart ones. Dont know if its similar enough to be considered patent infringemnent.
I dont think there's anything on those cages that resemble the ones I've been building though.
Looks nothing like any of Bruce's traps either that I can see.

[Bigshooter]

Reading the description I see a few things that are not true about any Comstock that I have used.

[kirkdekalb]

Just my opinion but it bears no resemblance to the majority of the swim throughs being made by guys in WA. One guys traps do use the same pattern IMO.

What I saw was the "described" claims, not just the exact pictures.  The Comstock has a central bar that can be mounted on the side of the cage or on top. It extends the bulk of the length of the cage. It pivots to release the doors that are hooked to it. There are several claims that make that part of his patent. The pivoting bar on most of the powered door traps I have seen used in Washington State traps may look a little different, but they work the same way. They have a rotating release bar that is mounted on the side or top. That bar is central to Comstocks patent that he received claims.

The door he shows the patents have run out. It is a standard lock bar door with rods of a thickness to withstand or match spring pressure. There are aspects of that door not found on other manufactures due to the heavy spring pressure. When we were partners we came up with those aspects because of the experimenting we did. That is why I said on an earlier post I was glad I took pictures.  I am able to explain the process as to when and how the designs came to pass. Also who developed them.

I dont think there's anything on those cages that resemble the ones I've been building though.
Looks nothing like any of Bruce's traps either that I can see.

Click on the address at the bottom of your post. Your traps have that rotating bar that releases your doors.

[Humptulips]

Kirk,
Comstock traps do indeed have a rotating bar however the ends and the middle that engages the trigger are different. Also there is the fact that traps using the rotating bar have been sold to the public for at least 6 years here in WA. What Jim has patented is different then others I have seen. If the fact that a rod turns on its axis is the only criteria then it has certainly been in the public domain for quite some time.

[Fl0und3rz]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reexamination

[kirkdekalb]

Comstock was smart. He put patent pending on his stuff and never showed a number to be referenced. He also started with a provisional patent. By doing this he had influence with the examiner with less chance of a challenge for prior art or even the wording in his application because it could not be seen or reviewed as easily if shown by "public pair". Once the patent is granted the best time to challenge is shortly after the patent is issued and is very expensive.

Once the patent is issued it is very expensive to challenge. A person or individual may have been making that design for years, but once the patent is issued it will cost probably at minimum $10,000 to nullify what was granted through request for re-examination.

The bad part for those that were making traps with his now patent since his filing, can be gone after. Individuals that posted pictures on the internet that cost "lost sales" may be sought out even though the trap is prior art. It no has to be proven. Legally posing liability on the trappers making and showing the traps even though it was prior art at the time.

 The issuance of a patent sets precedent.