Corma Inc. Business In Concord Incontinence Products, Supplies And Services Medical Products, Equipment And Services Health And Medicine

IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE, Manfred A.A. PATENT NO. 5,123,827 ISSUED: June 23, 1992 FOR: EXTRUSION DIE SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: 1. The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc., Toronto, Canada, the following prior art (including the copy thereof) and facts or information which pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: 1) Fundamentals of the Design and Calculation of Plastic Details and the Equipment for their Manufacturing (in Russian). Leningrad (Russia), Mashinostroenie Publishing House, 1972, p. 354, Fig.XI.2 2) Rase, Howard F. Piping Design for Process Plants. New York, John Willey & Sons, 1963, p. 31, Table 2.8 3) Russian Inventor's Certificate No. 493364, the lone figure 1. References (1) and (3) disclose an extrusion equipment strikingly similar to that of the contested patent in all of the aspects providing a threaded core end releasably engaged with a correspondingly threaded collar attachable to an extrusion head. Reference (3) shows that the threaded core end and the collar are standard details in general mechanical engineering and known under the name of screwed flanges. Said prior art documents were not mentioned in the references cited in the Lupke patent, although they were closer to the subject matter. Therefore, it is felt that said references have a bearing on the patentability of the contested patent. The claimed matter lacks the preconditions for patentability and fails to distinguish from the prior art, from which it might differ only in non-inventive respects, is insubstantial and the result of substituting one well-known alternate mechanical expedient for another to accomplish the same purpose. 2. Between November 1991 and March 1992 the undersigned filed Submissions of Prior Art under 37 CFR 1.501 in re the following patents of Lupke: Nos. 3,981,663; 4,199,314, 4,292,014; 4,319,872; 4,504,206; 4,510,013; 4,521,270; 4,553,923; 4,555,230; 4,936,768; 4,995,800; 5,002,478 and 5,023,029. Also, the undersigned filed Protest against said Lupke under 37 CFR 1.291 (a), involving issues of fraud, lack of candor and good faith and/or violation of duty of disclosure. That Protest disclosed the following facts: a) failure to disclose the existence of prior art patents and information known to the present inventor prior to the issuance of the patents; including the prior patents of the same applicant, which were "material to the examination of the application under consideration"; b) prior art disclosed in an inadequate manner or misrepresented; c) misrepresentation in patent application oaths or declarations and in patent specifications; d) violation of "duty of reasonable inquiry"; e) above issues of "fraud" or violation of "duty of disclosure" or "lack of candor and good faith" were not "errors without any deceptive intentions". 3. Numerous facts of patent fraud, ignorance and incompetence of Lupke and of misconduct of his counsels are available in the materials of legal proceedings against Lupke in Supreme Court of Ontario and Ontario Court (General Division), court files Nos. 35910/89 and 92-CQ-22544. Respectfully submitted, Encl. IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE ET AL. PATENT NO. 4,504,206 ISSUED: Mar. 12, 1985 FOR : CHAINLESS MOLD DRIVE FOR A CORRUGATOR OR THE LIKE SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the lone claim thereof: Lupke U.S. 3,981,663 Sept. 21, 1976 Fig. 2 1. More particularly, Fig. 2 of the earlier reference corresponds to Fig. 3 of the contested patent and discloses a thermoplastic tube producing apparatus strikingly similar to that of the contested patent in that between the sprockets of the apparatus a rotor is mounted on a shaft and mold sections are provided with a guide means operatively engaging with said rotor to ensure transverse alignment of the mold sections. What is more, the earlier figure is even more detailed and shows said rotor in its cross-section (as a hollow welded structure). Although the above prior art document is mentioned in the References Cited in the Lupke patent, and although said Fig. 2 is closer to the subject matter than any other prior art cited in that respect during prosecution of the contested patent, that particular figure and the design it represents were not referred to and were not discussed. 2. A standard inventor's Declaration and Power of Attorney states the following: "...I verily believe that I am the original, first and sole inventor (if only one name is listed below) or an original, first and joint inventor (if plural inventors are named below) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention... ...I have reviewed and understand the content of the above identified specification, including the claims... ...I acknowledge my duty to disclose information of which I am aware and which is material to the examination of this application in accordance with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.56(a)... ...the subject matter of each of the claims of this application is not disclosed in the prior United States application... ...I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such fillful statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon." Also, 35 U.S.C.102 states that "a person shall be entitled to a patent unless (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter". Since the earlier patent filed in the name of only one coinventor (Gerd P.H. Lupke) discloses the same subject matter, the cited figure rises questions whether Gerd P.H. Lupke invented the subject matter himself or with Manfred A.A. Lupke and whether willful false statements were made by both the applicants in one, or another, or both of the patents in respect of both the authorship and the earlier disclosure of the same subject matter. 3. 35 U.S.C. 112 requires the following: "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor by carrying out his invention". In the contested patent these conditions have not been met and no person skilled in the relevant art will, given this disclosure, be able to put the invention in practice in the relation to the Lupkes' teaching of a quick-return system (Fig. 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 57-68; col. 4, lines 1-9). That teaching would clearly deter a workman with the 8th grade of any European secondary school from making that system. The Lupkes "belt 156 with cleats or teeth 158 along its outer face is driven to advance the mold sections along their return runs at a speed greater than the mold speed along the forvard run". This teaching is considered totally wrong, if not absurd, according to the simple principles of mechanics taught in the standard course of physics for 14 years-old teenagers of said schools. In simple terms, if you are on a platform of a subway or rail-road station and want to jump in the opening of a moving train, than you should run as quick as the train before jumping in. Alternativelu, you can jump in, even if you are standing still, but this would require a much wider door opening (this is not the Einstein principle yet). Later, when you want to jump out of the moving train onto a platform, the length of the latter should be more than your body, and after landing you have to run as quick as the train and then slow down. Also, when you jumped into the train, you feet on the floor started to move with the train speed, but your body was still at your previous speed. Therefore, you would crash on your back (if you were facing forward). Similarly, when you jumped out of the train, your feet would become still, but your body would still move forward with the train speed. Therefore, you would crash again, this time on your belly. The same happens, if you substitute your body and the train with a mold section being engaged with said cleats or teeth 158 of a belt 156 of the Lupkes patent. Thus, Lupkes merely sought to solve the problem of using less quantity of mold sections in its simplest form without considering common (which, probably is not common) sense and knowledge of rudimentary basics of mechanics with the aspects of speeding up, slowing down, knocking down the teeth, the width of the latter, etc. Therefore, it is felt that Fig. 2 of said reference and the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of both the patents or, at least obviously, claim 1 of the Lupkes later patent, if not to say anything more. There are numerous isses of ignorance, oversights, ethics, the standards of knowledge or whatever else of all the people involved in granting such a patent (the inventors, patent agents, examiners, etc.) and their professional bodies (U.S. PTO, the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, of which Gerd P.H. Lupke is a member as a civil engineer, etc.). But all these issues are beyond the scope of this submission. Respectfully submitted, Encl. IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE ET AL. PATENT NO. 4,504,206 ISSUED: Mar. 12, 1985 FOR : CHAINLESS MOLD DRIVE FOR A CORRUGATOR OR THE LIKE SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: Lupke U.S. 3,981,663 Sept. 21, 1976 Fig. 2 1. More particularly, Fig. 2 of the earlier reference corresponds to Fig. 3 of the contested patent and discloses a thermoplastic tube producing apparatus strikingly similar to that of the contested patent in that between the sprockets of the apparatus a rotor is mounted on a shaft and mold sections are provided with a guide means operatively engaging with said rotor to ensure transverse alignment of the mold sections. What is more, the earlier figure is even more detailed and shows said rotor in its cross-section (as a hollow welded structure). Although the above prior art document is mentioned in the References Cited in the Lupke patent, and although said Fig. 2 is closer to the subject matter than any other prior art cited in that respect during prosecution of the contested patent, that particular figure and the design it represents were not referred to and were not discussed. 2. A standard inventor's Declaration and Power of Attorney states the following: "...I verily believe that I am the original, first and sole inventor (if only one name is listed below) or an original, first and joint inventor (if plural inventors are named below) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention... ...I have reviewed and understand the content of the above identified specification, including the claims... ...I acknowledge my duty to disclose information of which I am aware and which is material to the examination of this application in accordance with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.56(a)... ...the subject matter of each of the claims of this application is not disclosed in the prior United States application... ...I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such willful statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon." Also, 35 U.S.C.102 states that "a person shall be entitled to a patent unless (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter". Since the earlier patent filed in the name of only one coinventor (Gerd P.H. Lupke) discloses the same subject matter, the cited figure rises questions whether Gerd P.H. Lupke invented the subject matter himself or with Manfred A.A. Lupke and whether willful false statements were made by both the applicants in one, or another, or both of the patents in respect of both the authorship and the earlier disclosure of the same subject matter. 3. 35 U.S.C. 112 requires the following: "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor by carrying out his invention". In the contested patent these conditions have not been met and no person skilled in the relevant art will, given this disclosure, be able to put the invention in practice in the relation to the Lupkes' teaching of a quick-return system (Fig. 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 57-68; col. 4, lines 1-9). That teaching would clearly deter a workman with the 8th grade of any European secondary school from making that system. The Lupkes "belt 156 with cleats or teeth 158 along its outer face is driven to advance the mold sections along their return runs at a speed greater than the mold speed along the forward run". This teaching is considered totally wrong, if not absurd, according to the simple principles of mechanics taught in the standard course of physics for 14 years-old teenagers of said schools. In simple terms, if you are on a platform of a subway or rail-road station and want to jump in the opening of a moving train, than you should run as quick as the train before jumping in. Alternatively, you can jump in, even if you are standing still, but this would require a much wider door opening (this is not the Einstein principle yet). Later, when you want to jump out of the moving train onto a platform, the length of the latter should be more than your body, and after landing you have to run as quick as the train and then slow down. Also, when you jumped into the train, you feet on the floor started to move with the train speed, but your body was still at your previous speed. Therefore, you would crash on your back (if you were facing forward). Similarly, when you jumped out of the train, your feet would become still, but your body would still move forward with the train speed. Therefore, you would crash again, this time on your belly. The same happens, if you substitute your body and the train with a mold section being engaged with said cleats or teeth 158 of a belt 156 of the Lupkes patent. Thus, Lupkes merely sought to solve the problem of using less quantity of mold sections in its simplest form without considering common (which, probably is not common) sense and knowledge of rudimentary basics of mechanics with the aspects of speeding up, slowing down, knocking down the teeth, the width of the latter, etc. Therefore, it is felt that Fig. 2 of said reference and the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of both the patents or, at least obviously, claim 1 of the Lupkes later patent, if not to say anything more. There are numerous issues of ignorance, oversights, ethics, the standards of knowledge or whatever else of all the people involved in granting such a patent (the inventors, patent agents, examiners, etc.) and their professional bodies (U.S. PTO, the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, of which Gerd P.H. Lupke is a member as a civil engineer, etc.). But all these issues are beyond the scope of this submission. Respectfully submitted, IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE ET AL. PATENT NO. 4,504,206 ISSUED: Mar. 12, 1985 FOR : CHAINLESS MOLD DRIVE FOR A CORRUGATOR OR THE LIKE SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the lone claim thereof: Lupke U.S. 3,981,663 Sept. 21, 1976 Fig. 2 1. More particularly, Fig. 2 of the earlier reference corresponds to Fig. 3 of the contested patent and discloses a thermoplastic tube producing apparatus strikingly similar to that of the contested patent in that between the sprockets of the apparatus a rotor is mounted on a shaft and mold sections are provided with a guide means operatively engaging with said rotor to ensure transverse alignment of the mold sections. What is more, the earlier figure is even more detailed and shows said rotor in its cross-section (as a hollow welded structure). Although the above prior art document is mentioned in the References Cited in the Lupke patent, and although said Fig. 2 is closer to the subject matter than any other prior art cited in that respect during prosecution of the contested patent, that particular figure and the design it represents were not referred to and were not discussed. 2. A standard inventor's Declaration and Power of Attorney states the following: "...I verily believe that I am the original, first and sole inventor (if only one name is listed below) or an original, first and joint inventor (if plural inventors are named below) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention... ...I have reviewed and understand the content of the above identified specification, including the claims... ...I acknowledge my duty to disclose information of which I am aware and which is material to the examination of this application in accordance with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.56(a)... ...the subject matter of each of the claims of this application is not disclosed in the prior United States application... ...I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such fillful statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon." Also, 35 U.S.C.102 states that "a person shall be entitled to a patent unless (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter". Since the earlier patent filed in the name of only one coinventor (Gerd P.H. Lupke) discloses the same subject matter, the cited figure rises questions whether Gerd P.H. Lupke invented the subject matter himself or with Manfred A.A. Lupke and whether willful false statements were made by both the applicants in one, or another, or both of the patents in respect of both the authorship and the earlier disclosure of the same subject matter. 3. 35 U.S.C. 112 requires the following: "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor by carrying out his invention". In the contested patent these conditions have not been met and no person skilled in the relevant art will, given this disclosure, be able to put the invention in practice in the relation to the Lupkes' teaching of a quick-return system (Fig. 1 and 2; col. 3, lines 57-68; col. 4, lines 1-9). That teaching would clearly deter a workman with the 8th grade of any European secondary school from making that system. The Lupkes "belt 156 with cleats or teeth 158 along its outer face is driven to advance the mold sections along their return runs at a speed greater than the mold speed along the forvard run". This teaching is considered totally wrong, if not absurd, according to the simple principles of mechanics taught in the standard course of physics for 14 years-old teenagers of said schools. In simple terms, if you are on a platform of a subway or rail-road station and want to jump in the opening of a moving train, than you should run as quick as the train before jumping in. Alternativelu, you can jump in, even if you are standing still, but this would require a much wider door opening (this is not the Einstein principle yet). Later, when you want to jump out of the moving train onto a platform, the length of the latter should be more than your body, and after landing you have to run as quick as the train and then slow down. Also, when you jumped into the train, you feet on the floor started to move with the train speed, but your body was still at your previous speed. Therefore, you would crash on your back (if you were facing forward). Similarly, when you jumped out of the train, your feet would become still, but your body would still move forward with the train speed. Therefore, you would crash again, this time on your belly. The same happens, if you substitute your body and the train with a mold section being engaged with said cleats or teeth 158 of a belt 156 of the Lupkes patent. Thus, Lupkes merely sought to solve the problem of using less quantity of mold sections in its simplest form without considering common (which, probably is not common) sense and knowledge of rudimentary basics of mechanics with the aspects of speeding up, slowing down, knocking down the teeth, the width of the latter, etc. Therefore, it is felt that Fig. 2 of said reference and the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of both the patents or, at least obviously, claim 1 of the Lupkes later patent, if not to say anything more. There are numerous issues of ignorance, oversights, ethics, the standards of knowledge or whatever else of all the people involved in granting such a patent (the inventors, patent agents, examiners, etc.) and their professional bodies (U.S. PTO, the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, of which Gerd P.H. Lupke is a member as a civil engineer, etc.). But all these issues are beyond the scope of this submission. Respectfully submitted, IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE PATENT NO. 3,981,663 ISSUED: sept. 21, 1976 FOR : APPARATUS FOR MAKING HIGH SPEED CORRUGATED PLASTIC TUBING SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: 1) Reifenhauser U.K. 1,157,558 July 9, 1969 2) Lupke et al. U.S. 4,504,206 Mar. 12, 1985 Fig. 3 1. More particularly, the lone figure of the U.K. reference corresponds to Fig. 4 of the contested patent and discloses a corrugator for producing corrugated thermoplastic tubing strikingly similar to that of the contested patent in comprising: a pair of complimentary mold assemblies each comprising an endless chain of articulately interconnected mold blocks along an endless track having a forward and return run, each moldblock being complimentary to a respective moldblock of the other assembly, said moldblocks cooperating in pairs along said forward run to form an axially extending tunnel defining a tubular mold having a corrugated wall, means associated with said assemblies for driving said endless chains in synchronism for progressively moving the mold blocks along along said endless tracks, an extrusion head adapted to be fitted to the nozzle of an extrusion machine for forming a tube of thermoplastic material therefrom, means positioning the mold assemblies so as to locate the extrusion head at the entrance to said tunnel coaxially therewith, said extrusion head including first means for introducing pressurized air to the interior of the extruded tube for expanding the tube to conform to the wall of the tubular mold and second means separate of said first means, means spaced axially from the extrusion head for maintaining a presuurized air space between said means and and the extrusion head, and an air distributing duct extending axially along said tunnel beyond said means for distributing air to the interior of the molded thermoplastic material within said tubular mold. The known corrugator has the similar arrangement for separation of the blocks at the end of the forward run without changing the relative orientations of the blocks, and is provided with a heat exchanger within the tunnel, said extrusion head providing coolant connections communicating with said heat exchanger for supplying coolant therethrough. The first prior art document is not mentioned in the References Cited in the Lupke patent, although it is closer to the subject matter than any other prior art cited in that respect during prosecution of the contested patent. 2. A standard inventor's Declaration and Power of Attorney states the following: "...I verily believe that I am the original, first and sole inventor (if only one name is listed below) or an original, first and joint inventor (if plural inventors are named below) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention... ...I have reviewed and understand the content of the above identified specification, including the claims... ...I acknowledge my duty to disclose information of which I am aware and which is material to the examination of this application in accordance with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.56(a)... ...I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such fillful statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon." Also, 35 U.S.C.102 states that "a person shall be entitled to a patent unless (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter". In this respect, since Gerd P.H. Lupke's another patent (the 2nd reference) filed in the name of two coinventors (with Manfred A.A. Lupke) discloses and claims the same subject matter of Fig. 2 (please see the lone claim and Fig. 3 of the 2nd patent), this rises questions whether Gerd P.H. Lupke invented the subject matter himself or with Manfred A.A. Lupke and whether willful false statements were made by both the applicants in one, or another, or both of the patents in respect of both the authorship and the earlier disclosure of the same subject matter (the undersigned enclosed herewith a copy of the submission in re U.S. patent 4,504,206, dated November 26, 1991 and having bearing on the patentability of the earlier patent as well). Also, since Corma Inc. had drawings of Reifenhauser which alone or with its U.S. division published numerous presentations and their (technical) news magazines and marketed the Corma equipment as well, another concern of the authorship is raised. Therefore, it is felt that said references and the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of the contested patent, if not to say anything more. The issues of ethics of the inventor (Gerd P.H. Lupke is a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario as a civil engineer) is, however, beyond the scope of this submission. Respectfully submitted, Encl. IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE PATENT NO. 4,521,270 ISSUED: Jun. 4, 1985 FOR : APPARATUS FOR FORMING SPIRALLY WOUND PIPE SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the contested patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: Lupke et al. U.S. 4,292,014 Sept. 29, 1981 Fig. 5, 9-12 1. More particularly, the earlier reference discloses an apparatus for use in the manufacture of spirally wound pipes, which is strikingly similar to that of the contested patent in that: (1) it includes a helical track and a plurality of moldblocks adapted to travel serially along the track so as to define a rotating and axially advancing mandrel surface, characterized by: (a) the track having a hollow core; and (b) a block return system comprising: (i) a block return passage extending along the hollow core of the helical track, (ii) run-out means for transferring the blocks serially from the helical track to the return passage at a downstream position, (iii) run-in means for transferring the blocks serially from the return passage to the track at an upstream position, and serially through the block return system, (iv) return drive means for driving the block serially through the block return system; (2) it is further characterized in that each block comprises a carrier adapted to be driven along the track and through the return system and a profile block mounted on the carrier, the profile blocks co-operating along the track to define the mandrel surface; (3) it is further characterized in that each profile block is removably mounted on its carrier; (4) it is characterized by a mandrel surface with helical corrugations; (5) it is characterized in that the run-out means comprises means for guiding the blocks through an arcuate path of diminishing radius from the track to the return passage; (6) it is characterized in that the arcuate path of diminishing radius has the same pitch as the helical track. (8) it is characterized by an extruder for extruding a band of thermoplastic material onto the mandrel surface so as to be wound on the mandrel surface in an overlapping helix. The above prior art document is not mentioned in the References Cited in the Lupke patent, and although it is closer to the subject matter than any other prior art cited during prosecution of the contested patent, that particular patent was not referred to and was not discussed. 2. A standard inventor's Declaration and Power of Attorney states the following: "...I verily believe that I am the original, first and sole inventor (if only one name is listed below) or an original, first and joint inventor (if plural inventors are named below) of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought on the invention... ...I have reviewed and understand the content of the above identified specification, including the claims... ...I acknowledge my duty to disclose information of which I am aware and which is material to the examination of this application in accordance with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.56(a)... ...the subject matter of each of the claims of this application is not disclosed in the prior United States application... ...I hereby declare that all statements made herein of my own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and that such fillful statements may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon." Also, 35 U.S.C.102 states that "a person shall be entitled to a patent unless (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter". Since the earlier patent filed in the name of two coinventors (with Gerd P.H. Lupke) discloses the same subject matter, it rises questions whether Manfred A.A. Lupke invented the subject matter himself or with Gerd P.H. Lupke and whether willful false statements were made by the first named inventor in the contested patent in respect of both the authorship and the earlier disclosure of the same subject matter. Therefore, it is felt that said reference and the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of the contested patent, if not to say anything more. Respectfully submitted, Encl. IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE ET AL. PATENT NO. 4,292,014 ISSUED: Sep. 29, 1981 FOR : FEED MECHANISM COMPRISING AN ENDLESS MEMBER CONFIGURED AS A DOUBLE HELIX SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (not including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: Teaching of Leonard Euler (1707-83) described in any mechanical engineering handbook or a secondary-school textbook 35 U.S.C. 112 requires the following: "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor by carrying out his invention". In the contested patent these conditions have not been met and no person skilled in the relevant art will, given this disclosure, be able to put the invention in practice in the relation to the Lupkes teaching of a mechanism comprising an inner rotating helical sleeve (11) welded to an outer coaxial helical member (12), with an endless belt (22) wound upon both these parts. In operation, said belt is supposed to be restrained against rotation by a soft thermoplastic parison extruded from an extrusion head (col 3, lines 50-62). Such teaching would clearly deter a workman with the 8th grade of any European secondary school from making that mechanism. That teaching is considered totally wrong, if not absurd, according to the simple principles of mechanics taught in the standard course of physics for 14 years-old teenagers of said schools. According to a cimple principle known about 2,500 years ago and mathematically described by said Euler about 1750, the tension on the tight (T1) and slack (T2) sides of the belt are as follows: fO T1/T2 = e , where e=2,718 is the base of the natural logarithms, f is the friction coefficient, O is the arc of contact. The Lupkes shows 9 revolutions of the belt around the rotating members. A small arithmetic exercise will show how many billions of amplifying of the friction force one would get in that case. No soft thermoplastic parison would help to prevent the belt from rotation. Also, it is well known in the art of extrusion that the soft parison can be easily twisted. Even one of the coinventors (Manfred A.A. Lupke) acknowledged that no twisting force should be exerted on a soft parison (please see his subsequent U.S. patents Nos. 4,712,993 and 4,770,618). As one can see, however, it took many years for him to learn some aspects of the trade. Thus, the Lupkes merely sought to solve the problem of creating an axially moving surface of a mandrel in its simplest form without considering common (which, probably, is not common) sense and knowledge of rudimentary basics of the ancient Greek mechanics with the aspects of amplifying the friction forces according to the above Euler formula published, perhaps, about 250 years ago. Therefore, it is felt that the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of the patent, if not to say anything more about the issues of ignorance, oversights, the standards of knowledge or whatever else of all the people involved in granting such a patent (the inventors, patent agents, examiners, etc.) and their professional bodies (U.S. PTO, the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Ontario, of which Gerd P.H. Lupke is a member as a civil engineer, his university, etc.). But all these issues are beyond the scope of this submission. Respectfully submitted, Encl. IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE PATENT NO. 4,553,923 ISSUED: Nov. 19, 1985 FOR : PRODUCING THERMOPLASTIC ARTICLES PARTICULARLY WITH POROUS WALLS SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc. (10 McLeary Court, Concord, ON L4K 3L5 Canada) the following prior art (not including the copy thereof) which is pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: Basics of the Newtonian mechanics described in any mechanical engineering handbook or a secondary-school textbook 35 U.S.C. 112 requires the following: "The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor by carrying out his invention". In the contested patent these conditions have not been met and no person skilled in the relevant art will, given this disclosure, be able to put the invention in practice on numerous reasons, some of which as follows: 1. According to the Newtonian laws, something should restrain the hot soft thermoplastic pipe 12 against rotation, which in such a condition will be twicted by rotating members anyway. 2. The spool 34 cannot rotate because it is pressed to the stationary ring gear 32. 3. Different circumferential velocities within the corrugated profile of the spindels 42 and 48 will damage the hot soft pipe 12. 4. The inner spindels 42 will not be in permanent engagement with the outer spindels 48 because they are freely rotatable around both the shafts 72 and 46. The Lupke teaching would clearly deter a workman with the 8th grade of any European secondary school from making that mechanism. That teaching is considered totally wrong, if not absurd, according to the simple principles of mechanics taught in the standard course of physics for 14 years-old teenagers of said schools. Also, it is well known in the art of extrusion that the soft parison can be easily twisted. Even Lupke himself acknowledged that no twisting force should be exerted on a soft parison (please see his subsequent U.S. patents Nos. 4,712,993 and 4,770,618). As one can see, however, it took some years for him to learn some aspects of the trade. Thus, Lupke merely sought to solve the problem of expanding and profiling a plastic pipe by the means used for metal pipes in its simplest form without considering common (which, probably, is not common) sense and knowledge of rudimentary basics of mechanics. Therefore, it is felt that the above considerations have a bearing on the patentability of the patent, if not to say anything more about the issues of ignorance, oversights, the standards of knowledge or whatever else of all the people involved in granting such a patent (the inventors, patent agents, examiners, etc.) and their professional bodies (U.S. PTO, National Research Council of Canada granted money to Corma Inc. on the back of that patent, etc.). But all these issues are beyond the scope of this submission. Respectfully submitted,
by LANG MICHENER COURTFILE on 11/16/2011 5:25:57 AM
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN RE PATENT OF LUPKE, Manfred A.A. PATENT NO. 5,324,557 ISSUED: Jun. 28, 1994 FOR: MULTI-SKIN ANNULARY RIBBED TUBE SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501 Hon. Commissioner of Patents & Trademarks Washington, D.C. 20231 SIR: The undersigned herewith submits in the above identified patent of Corma Inc., Toronto, Canada, the following facts or information which pertinent and applicable to the patent and is believed to have bearing on the patentability of the claims thereof: 1. Since November 1991 the undersigned has filed Submissions of Prior Art under 37 CFR 1.501 in re the following patents of Lupke: Nos. 3,981,663; 4,199,314, 4,292,014; 4,319,872; 4,504,206; 4,510,013; 4,521,270; 4,553,923; 4,555,230; 4,936,768; 4,995,800; 5,002,478; 5,023,029; 5,123,187; 5,186,878; 5,296,188; 5,330,600 and 5,372,774. Also, the undersigned has filed Protest against said Lupke under 37 CFR 1.291 (a), involving issues of fraud, lack of candor and good faith and/or violation of duty of disclosure. That Protest disclosed the following facts: a) failure to disclose the existence of prior art patents and information known to the present inventor prior to the issuance of the patents; including the prior patents of the same applicant, which were "material to the examination of the application under consideration"; b) prior art disclosed in an inadequate manner or misrepresented; c) misrepresentation in patent application oaths or declarations and in patent specifications; d) violation of "duty of reasonable inquiry"; e) above issues of "fraud" or violation of "duty of disclosure" or "lack of candor and good faith" were not "errors without any deceptive intentions". 2. Numerous facts of misappropriating confidential information of other persons and firms to spring his patent monopoly by Lupke, patent fraud, ignorance and incompetence of Lupke are available in the materials of legal proceedings against Lupke in Supreme Court of Ontario and Ontario Court (General Division), court files Nos. 35910/89 and 92-CQ-22544. 3. Lupke and his party fabricated a law suit against the undersigned for a permanent gag order, but later discontinued the suit and paid out the court costs of the undersigned. 4. The documents show that Lupke did not come, inter alia, to the PTO with "clean hands". Respectfully submitted,
by LANG MICHENER FILE on 11/16/2011 5:21:56 AM

Write a Review on Corma Inc.

About Corma Inc.

Details

Contact Information

Other Busiess Listing Info

Listing Statistics