Wednesday, July 15, 2015

USPTO Conspiracy III

USPTO Conspiracy III

Hydrology Breakthrough vs. USPTO Conspiracy and Brainwashing

My scientific breakthrough in Hydrology grounded by US pat 6,766,817 is being shamefully violated by flawed and lousy patents from lay inventors colluding with corrupt and dishonest Patent Examiners and Attorneys.

Brainwashing – USPTO is preaching to their Patent Examiners that they do not need to be known in the art for judging and allowing IP rights when issuing patents!

I am confident that the Patent Law neither allows REINVENTION nor neglecting common knowledge from old common textbooks. It seems that nobody is allowed to invent again what was already invented and common knowledge like classical Hydrology one of the oldest sciences cannot be neglected so dishonorably.

USPTO is preaching that any person can get a whistle and referee a soccer game neither knowing the soccer rules nor having experience playing soccer. Arlen Soderquist a Patent Examiner that claims to be a Chemist scientist from Utah is confident that he can examine Hydrology even having no background about this old classical science. I am curious if the Department of Chemistry of University of Utah teaches any Hydrology to their students.

Dr. Soderquist is claiming that people speaking Spanish can mean different things, but I am from Brazil as we speak Portuguese and my English is from my PhD in Soil Science at Pennsylvania State University. My textbooks are in English as I do not use dictionaries to write technical issues (Dominico & Schwartz, 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Pg. 88. Wiley). He is deprived in Geography and nil in Hydrology as I speak no Spanish. Je parle Français aussi monsieur. Did Dr. Soderquist learn Chemistry on dictionaries? Is Chemistry Department teaching by dictionaries or textbooks?

This is the way Dr. Arlen Soderquist sees Hydrology: very funny and so different from the scientific literature! Oh Dear!








Why USPTO is a sham system designed to conspiring and cheating harming the technological development?

  1. USPTO hides the technical background of Patent Examiners as we do not know how much they are known in the art for judging the boundaries of technical issues for inventions (Epistemology)
  2. USPTO allows multiple applications of the same invention collecting more money from wealthy parties and letting some of them get through by lay Patent Examiners
  3. USPTO assigns lay inventors that allow reinvention with flawed lazy patents from wealthy parties colluding with corrupt dishonest Patent Attorneys and Patent Examiners.
  4. Inventors do not collect reward from IP rights unless they can afford 3 to 5 million dollars suing wealthy parties reinventing their ideas with lousy and  lay patents having blatant scientific flaws.
  5. For any inventor that spends years, time, and resources to get an issued patent expanding new technical boundaries seeing it stolen is very disappointing, but when this is done by flawed patents it becomes simply unbearable unless assuming that we are part of a stamped toward a cliff with clear government misleading.


As a PhD in Soil Science at Penn Sate Univ. and taking many Hydrology courses and author of US Pat 6,766,817 I learned hydrology as part of the scientific classical literature:





The Conspiracy – USPTO is running a broad Reinvention Scheme that let Lawyers writing scientific patents and allowing IP rights of issues they are not known in the art!


‘...  If you have a point to make about my treatment of hydrological concepts, I ask that you take the time to explain your specific points of disagreement.  I note that my work is better represented in my publications (available at http://www.stroockgroup.org/home/publications​) than in patents, as the lawyers have been translated the latter into legalese that I do not understand.


When a PhD scientist from Harvard gets an issued US patent of his scientific achievement but he does not understand the language brings a suspicion on how much Patent Attorneys prosecuting it and Examiners allowing it know about the issue granted IP protection rights by US government. There is no doubt that this is an atrocious USPTO Conspiracy as Lawyer have no understanding on scientific matters. The outcome is broad trend of violations and fraud on intellectual property affairs harming scientific principles and technological development.

My ‘scientific breakthrough’ deals deeply with Hydrogeology/Soil Physics/Hydrology. When I took classes at the Pennsylvania State University of such disciplines during my PhD in Soil Science I remember seeing no single Law student as classmate.


Who cares?

I got my PhD at Penn State Univ. a famous place that let boys be raped in the locker rooms more than a decade. Bill Clinton then President was on my commencement saying we would be inventing new technologies never imagined before. He did not mention about facing government conspiracy violating science by a USPTO despicable reinvention policy! While money was pouring and fame was high at Happy Valley Joe Pa and Graham Spanier did not budge to protect a sound functioning of society as it seems to be a major trend around spoiling American credibility far beyond their imagination. . . after all who cares about disadvantaged boys and even less for science and technological development?

The country I got my PhD changed so abruptly!

Now my ‘scientific breakthrough’ is facing the same treat as those boys got in the academic facilities – shameful rape by Law Firms, Corporations, and Institutions in a conspiracy scheme letting wealthy parties pillage on granted patents by reinvention with lousy patents from lay inventors and corrupt Lawyers . Wealthy Corporations and top educational Institutions are crossing the boundaries flunking the content of their libraries, ethics, respect, and dishonoring edifying principles by shamefully disregarding the Law.

From my patent US Pat. 6,766,817

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  (Pursuing A Scientific Discovery 059 Tubarc II)
(3rd paragraph)
A fluid that possesses a positive pressure can be generally defined in the field of hydrology as saturated fluid. Likewise, a fluid that has a negative pressure (i.e., or suction) can be generally defined as an unsaturated fluid. Fluid matric potential can be negative or positive. For example, water standing freely at an open lake, can be said to stand under a gravity pull. The top surface of the liquid of such water accounts for zero pressure known as the water table or hydraulic head. Below the water table, the water matric potential (pressure) is generally positive because the weight of the water increases according to parameters of force per unit of area. When water rises through a capillary tube or any other porosity, the water matric potential (e.g., conventionally negative pressure or suction) is negative because the solid phase attracts the water upward relieving part of its gravitational pull to the bearing weight. The suction power comes from the amount of attraction in the solid phase per unit of volume in the porosity.

(7th paragraph)
Specialized scientific literature about unsaturated zones also recognizes this shortcoming. For example: "Several differences and complications must be considered. One complication is that concepts of unsaturated flow are not as fully developed as those for saturated flow, nor are they as easily applied." (See Dominico & Schwartz, 1990. Physical and Chemical Hydrogeology. Pg. 88. Wiley). Concepts of unsaturated flow have not been fully developed to date, because the "capillary action" utilized to measure the adhesion-cohesion force of porosity is restrained by capillary tube geometry conceptions. The term "capillary action" has been wrongly utilized in the art as a synonym for unsaturated flow, which results in an insinuation that the tube geometry conception captures this phenomenon when in truth it does not.

(16th paragraph)
The present inventor has thus discovered that the dynamics between saturated and unsaturated conditions as expressed in the fluid matric potential can be utilized to harness the unsaturated flow of fluid using the macrostructure of reversible unsaturated siphons for a variety of purposes, such as irrigation and drainage, fluid recharging and filtration, to name a few. The present inventor has thus designed unique methods and systems to recover or prevent interruption in liquid unsaturated flow in both multidirectional and reversible direction by taking advantage of the intrinsic relationship between unsaturated and saturated hydrological zones handling a vertical fluid matric gradient when working under gravity conditions. The present inventor has thus designed an enhanced microporosity called tubarc, which is a tube like geometric figure having continuous lateral flow in all longitudinal extension. The tubarc porosity offers a high level of safe interconnected longitudinally, while providing high anisotropy for fluid movement and reliability for general hydrodynamic applications.


My Demand to USPTO

It is not that hard to argue at the Court of the Law that Hydrological issues should be examined by Hydrologists.
My demand to USPTO is the same as the first letter sent on Oct. 2006:

1. Hire Examiners with background in Hydrogeology and/or Soil Physics so that they have full comprehension of fluids moving on porosity;
2. Cancel issued patents with scientific flaws. Obsolete patents are cancelled naturally by becoming outdated;
3. Make a public statement about Hydrology negligence hurting all Hydrological community as well as my project that needs experts in Hydrology to protect the content of my issued claims.
4. Compensate for my losses since as an inventor filing patents I was not expecting lay people handling hydrology in the examination process by USPTO.
5. Since USPTO is failing to protect my IP rights my patents should be eligible for time extension of their expiration dates (new demand).
6. Issue a bill requiring Hydrology be handled by Hydrologists preventing laypeople from harming standing common knowledge in the scientific literature (new demand).
7.  Make people accountable for breaking the Law regarding my complaints (new demand).
_______________________________________________________________________________

Understanding the bias – The size of the Hydrological Gap

Wick/wicking is not a word found on my Hydrology textbooks but it is in the patent classification system at USPTO guiding lay inventors and lay Patent Examiners pretending they are known in the art.

In 1856 Henry Darcy proposed an equation Law to address fluids moving on porosity for Hydraulic Conductivity. Afterwards in 1907 Edward Buckingham suggested a change to address negative pressure flow for Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow (wick/wicking).

Today July 9, 2015 searching at USPTO:

Thermal/Heat Conductivity is mentioned in                                                               104,147 issued patents
Electrical/Electric Conductivity is mentioned in                                                          80,000 issued patents
Hydraulic Conductivity mentioned in only                                                                          767 issued patents
Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity (wicking for lay people) is mentioned in only                 29 issued patents 
Wick/wicking (Unsaturated Flow if not flawed) is mentioned in                                    34,519 issued patents

_______________________________________________________________________________
The Conspiracy

Abraham Duncan Stroock
Dept: Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
Title: Associate Professor

Education

Ph.D., Harvard University, Chemical Physic (2002)
M.S., University Paris VI and XI,Solid State Physics (1997)
B.A. Cornell UniversityPhysics (1995)


De: Abraham Duncan Stroock [mailto:abe.stroock@cornell.edu]
Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de abril de 2014 22:20
Para: Elson Silva, PhD
Assunto: RE: [06856] Protecting Hydrology Science from REINVENTION by corrupt LAY PEOPLE colluding with USPTO - US Pat 8,701,469

Dear Dr. Silva,
‘...  If you have a point to make about my treatment of hydrological concepts, I ask that you take the time to explain your specific points of disagreement.  I note that my work is better represented in my publications (available at http://www.stroockgroup.org/home/publications​) than in patentsas the lawyers have been translated the latter into legalese that I do not understand.

Best regards,

Abe
___________________________________________________________
De: Elson Silva, PhD [mailto:el_silva@uol.com.br]
Enviada em: terça-feira, 22 de abril de 2014 23:40
Para: 'Abraham Duncan Stroock'
Cc: cko3@cornell.edu; TDO1@cornell.edu; MGS22@cornell.edu; SBW11@cornell.edu; el_silva@uol.com.br
Assunto: RES: [06856] Protecting Hydrology Science from REINVENTION by corrupt LAY PEOPLE colluding with USPTO - US Pat 8,701,469
Prioridade: Alta

Abe,

You are so naive.

‘…Are you sure you got your PhD at Harvard? ‘

Lawyers learn nothing about Hydrology in Law School.

As far as I know no Law School provides Hydrology teaching . . . No Lawyer could discuss Hydrology having no expertise in the subject!

This is funny!
You do not give your scientific papers to Lawyers, so why are your patents different?
(By the way, was it a Lawyer who wrote your PhD thesis?)
Also, Lawyers are illiterate on the functioning of science, besides most scientists have no idea about Epistemology, Metaphysics, Logics, and History of Science (Philosophy of Science).

USPTO is a sham system allowing reinvention sometimes by flawed lazy patents from wealthy parties letting Lawyers step over boundaries beyond their background in Law Schools….’


Academic Pillage on Hydrology Science

UCONN III, …, XIV




SUNNY IIIIIIIV


UC Santa Barbara IIIIII




Wicking Mob – Harvard University


https://youtu.be/czv2OiiC5wA - MY SCIENTIFIC REWARD
Indeed I cannot receive any Nobel Prize Award. Mr. Alfred Nobel also was blessed by nature in his lab as it exploded in Sweden when he was developing the Chemistry of explosives coined as the father of Dynamite. He became famous and wealthy helping governments making more efficient wars decimating millions of humans with more efficient explosives. He neither got married nor left any offspring to keep his DNA on human genetic pool. It seems that in the deep underlying principles there is nothing noble but depressing to noble prizes that mismatch with hummingbirds.


From: Arlen.Soderquist@USPTO.GOV
To: 
elson_silva@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: People behind wick/wicking neither understand HYDORLOGY nor the functioning of oil lamps!!!!!
Date: Thu, 
2 Jul 2015 18:01:30 +0000
Dr. Silva,
I believe your problem is one of language and how it is used to define an invention in the patent application process.  As you know, words have one or more definitions and which definition is used/appropriate may vary depending on the situation or context in which it is used.  My understanding is that occasionally, the same word in Spanish can mean different things depending on the country of the person speaking.  Additionally, two people from different countries that speak Spanish may use different words to describe the same thing.  A similar situation can exist in patents and patenting: a term or phrase can have a definition that is different from the same term or phrase used in science, engineering and/or in an English language dictionary.  Some time it is narrower, but often it is broader than what one might find in a dictionary.  The definition of "wick" from Oxford Dictionaries follows.
noun
A strip of porous material up which liquid fuel is drawn by capillary action to the flame in a candle, lamp, or lighter.
verb
Absorb or draw off (liquid) by capillary action:
Sentences using the verb "wick"
‘these excellent socks will wick away the sweat’
‘synthetics with hollow fibers that wick well’

The verb wick has a broader definition than just transportation of liquid fuel to the flame in a candle, lamp, or lighter.  It is the broader meaning of that verb used in the example sentences that is generally applied to the term "wick" in a patent claim regardless of whether it is a noun or a verb.  Thus a porous material that will transfer a liquid by capillary action is often referred to as a "wick" or "wicking material" in patents.  Below are some examples of the use of the term "wick" that predate your invention. 

US 3811840 A   TEST DEVICE FOR DETECTING LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF SUBSTANCES IN FLUIDS
Issued May 21, 1974
ABSTRACT: 
   Test device for detecting low concentrations of substances in test fluids comprising an absorbent wick having a substantially flat surface portion enclosed in a fluid impervious sheath having an aperture of predetermined limited area formed therein, the aperture being contiguous to and exposing a predetermined limited area of the flat surface portion of the wick, which portion is incorporated with a reagent specifically reactable with the substance being detected.  In use the device is immersed into the test fluid so that the aperture is submerged and the device, allowed to remain therein while the test fluid contacts the reagent area adjacent to the aperture and migrates into the remainder of the wick.  The reagent is immobilized with respect to the liquid.  The sheath adjacent to the wick is opaque.

C A    METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF PHOSPHORUS IN AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
Issued September 21, 1971
column 1, lines 56-59
The enclosed hollow chamber 12 has a drain end through which condensed sample material flows into a drain tube 60, usually through a wick 62 which extends from the bottom of the chamber 12 into the tube 60.

US 3554700 A    METHOD FOR OBTAINING A KNOWN VOLUME OF LIQUID AND ABSORPTION APPARATUS THEREFOR
Issued January 12, 1971
column 5, lines 13-33
A fourth form of apparatus for applying liquid sample to an absorbent pad 20" is shown in FIG. 3. Pad 20" is formed in the same manner as pad 20.  A vessel 34 filled with liquid sample 35, has a wick 36, comprised of absorbent material, dipped into it.  The wick may be comprised of any of the materials of which the absorbent pad 20" may be comprised, and make take the form of an elongated thin string or any other form which permits transmission along wick 36 of liquid sample from container 34 to pad 20".  Wick 36 is in contact at 37 with pad 20".  Liquid 35 travels along wick 36as the wick absorbs the liquid.  When the liquid on wick 36 contacts pad 20", pad 20" absorbs liquid from wick 36.  The absorption by both wick 36 and then by pad 20" continues until both of them are saturated, and then halts.  The period of time allowed for the absorption process must be sufficient to permit both the wick 36 and the disc 20" to become saturated and may be permitted to be longer than this.  After the disc 20" is saturated, the wick 36 is separated from it and saturated pad 20" is holding a known volume of liquid sample. 

US 3511570 A    METHOD OF PREPARING SAMPLES FROM SOLUTION
Issued May 12, 1970
column 3, lines 5-22
Element 20 is formed of a matrix material meeting a number of criteria.  It must be capable of being compressed to form a porous mass wherein the pores are interconnected to form channels of size appropriate to allow capillary flow through the mass of a solvent and a solute sample.  It further must be a solid capable of being compressed, as from a powdered state, into an imporous mass or disc that is substantially transparent to the radiation of interest, e.g. does not, in the compressed transparent form, exhibit substantial absorption of radiation, such as infrared, in the band of radiation intended for use in identifying the sample material to be mixed with the matrix material.  Of course, the matrix material should be relatively highly insoluble with respect to the solvent to be transported therethrough when the material is in porous form 20 and should be substantially nonreactive chemically with either the solvent or the solute. 
column 3, line 71 to column 4, line 7
The porous matrix acts as a wick and therefore by capillary action transfers the solutions to the other end 24 of the elongated element.  Coat 26 serves to prevent solvent evaporation from the surface of element 20 except at end 24, As solvent evaporates from exposed end 24, the concentration of the solute sample in the exposed end increases.  Of course, the length of time one continues to wick solution through element 20 depends on a number of factors such as solvent volatility in the ambient atmosphere, temperature, the original concentration of solute in the solvent and the like. 

As you said the use of a porous material to "wick" or transfer a fluid through capillary action is not new.  Its use in the patent literature predates your invention and has established a definition for the term that predates your invention(s).  Fortunately or unfortunately, that definition affects all applications containing the various forms of the word "wick" that are filed.  Without defining a particular term/phrase to mean a specific structure, composition or set of process steps, words in a patent and patent application are treated as having their normal, established definition.  That definition may not distinguish your "wick drain" from another porous material that is being used to transfer material through capillary action (see US 3607070 described above) to a drain of some sort.  I hope you agree that the "wick" being described in the above patents has a structure that covers a wide range of materials.  For the most part they are probably different from the "wick drain" or "long strip about 0.5 cm thick and 10 cm wide and consists of a plastic core wrapped with geotextile filter" that you appear to have invented.   However, using the term/phrase/language "wick drain" does not necessarily distinguish your invention/material from any other porous material that can transfer a liquid through capillary action. 





From: Arlen.Soderquist@USPTO.GOV
To: 
elson_silva@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: People behind wick/wicking neither understand HYDORLOGY nor the functioning of oil lamps!!!!!
Date: Thu, 
2 Jul 2015 23:44:46 +0000
Dr. Silva,
               I am a scientist that came to work for the patent office.  Since coming to the patent office, I have been trained in patent law and the patent examination process.  In the patent examination process an examiner picks up an application that has been assigned to them and works to learn enough about the invention that they can determine if the claims are patentable.  In that process I have studied patents and scientific literature in a variety of areas to learn what is known and make those patentability determinations.  Have I taken a formal class in hydrology, hydrogeology or soil physics?  No.  Do I need to take a formal hydrology class in order to understand that the transport of water through soil, sand, rock and other types of porous earth materials is based on the principle of an applied force: either naturally or externally applied?  Or that sometimes one can have opposing forces and whether water moves in one direction or the other depends on the relative size of the opposing forces.  No. 
               Is this a discussion on hydrology?  Yes and no.  Is hydrology the basis of your invention?  Partly, to the extent that it relates to the transport of water through earth materials.  However, if the means for that transport is something other than an earth material, it goes beyond the scope of hydrology and extends into the transport of fluids in general.  Moreover, a patent is of a scope that is larger than just hydrology.  If this discussion is only about hydrology and you do not want to talk to someone that you probably consider a lay person, please remove me from your email list so that you don’t waste your time trying to say something that you don’t feel I will understand anyway. 
I will try to answer more of your questions, but will start by modifying your question below.  If YOU are a lay person in patents and/or patent law, why you want to discuss a technical/legal issue you do not have the same level of understanding that that you seem to be trying to say that I need in hydrology to be able to talk with you?
               Is a patent a scientific publication?  No.  Yes patents contain a technical disclosure and some are even similar to a publication by one or more of the inventors, but the purpose of a patent is different from that of a scientific publication.  A patent is a legal document that teaches one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use what one has invented and sets the boundaries for the invention so that another person of ordinary skill in the art knows when they are practicing the invention.  It can be used to ask a court of law to prevent another person or business from practicing your claimed invention or to get the person or business to pay you a royalty for their practice/use of your claimed invention.  It is limited to a device, composition of matter or process.  A scientific publication cannot be used in that manner. 
A scientific principle may form the basis for the invention or may be utilized to practice the invention, but it is not the invention.  For example, the shape of a pore and/or material type on the surface of a pore may influence the surface tension/attraction between a certain type of liquid and the pore which facilitates or impedes its movement through a porous material.  However it is the shape of the surface and/or the type material at the pore surface that is claimed.  This ensures that someone of ordinary skill in the art can understand/determine when they are practicing another’s invention.  It also helps a lay person in a jury being asked to judge whether or not the invention is being infringed/improperly used. 
               Can a person without formal training in a particular field invent something that in that field that works?  Yes.  An understanding of the principles involved in a particular structure, composition or method being able to function in the intended manner is often helpful, but not necessary to developing something that works.  Sometimes lack of knowledge initially frees one of the prejudices that come with knowledge, allowing them to try things that an expert would dismiss based on an expectation of failure. 
               If this were a perfect world the patent system may not be needed.  Is the patent system perfect?  No.  Is any patent examiner perfect so that any application they work on that becomes a patent that will survive any legal challenge that may happen?  No, I, like every other examiner, am not perfect, make mistakes and am capable of failure.  Do I work hard to use the resources available to me to find the closest related patents and/or scientific literature available to make my decisions?  Yes.  Can I miss things?  Yes.  If someone uses the term “wick” in an application, do I have the skill and/or knowledge to determine what it is they are talking about to the point that I can search and find prior art and make the patentability decision that is required?  I believe that I do.  
You cite two instances where people have used a particular phrase to describe a particular type of movement through a porous material.  Are they available in a computer searchable format or would I need to sit in a library for days, months or years to find them?  Can you tell me where to find all that has been published related to hydrology over the last three hundred, one hundred or even fifty years.  I don’t know that there is anyone alive that has that knowledge.  Maybe more important from an examiner’s perspective of being able to find what is available, can you tell me all of the terms/phrases – lay, legal and scientific/technical – I should use in my searching so that I can be sure to find all the patents and published literature related to hydrology if I had an application directed to an invention using hydrology?  This list should probably include those terms/phrases that have been used only one time as well as those commonly misused to describe hydrological properties, parameters and/or principles. 
One final thought, if there is a problem with the way in which patents to others are granted that as you seem to feel allows them to get a patent that they shouldn’t have, then how can you be sure that that same system didn’t fail when it issued any of your patents?  You as well as every other inventor that holds a patent are treated as having a valid patent in a court until there is evidence presented that the patent is invalid.  I understand that you probably don’t have the means to challenge every patent that you think is invalid, but they have the same right as you to practice their invention until the court says that they can’t or they decide it is not worth it to continue to practice their invention.  While it may not be the best system, it is what is available until laws change. 




From: Arlen.Soderquist@USPTO.GOV
To: elson_silva@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: People behind wick/wicking neither understand HYDORLOGY nor the functioning of oil lamps!!!!!
Date: 
Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:24:44 +0000
Dr. Silva
               The language of a claim is important as it defines the scope of the invention.  It is possible that your claim 1 does not actually claim what you think it does and that could be part of your problem in trying to enforce your patent.  Just so you understand how I would interpret the language of claim 1 in your 6,766,817 patent, I have prepared the following diagram. 




Step 1 or the conducting step is “conducting a fluid from a saturated zone to an unsaturated zone utilizing a tubarc porous microstructure”.  Step 2 or the delivering step is “delivering said fluid from said unsaturated zone to said saturated zone through said tubarc porous microstructure”.
I have added emphasis to the words “from” and “to” because they are critical to the direction of fluid movement.  The result of the two steps is that the fluid goes from the saturated zone to the unsaturated zone and then back to the saturated zone.  For someone to infringe claim 1, it requires two way movement of the fluid along the tubarc porous microstructure: first from the saturated zone to the unsaturated zone followed by movement from the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone.  While that may have been what you intended to claim, the process for that to occur is more complex than the claim would indicate.  However the process that causes fluid to move is easily understood from column 6, lines 29-45 in your patent which I have reproduced with added emphasis.  The fluid moves along a gradient from a region of higher potential to a region of lower potential and is reversible if the gradient is reversed.  

“The above and other aspects can be achieved as will now be summarized.  Methods and systems for harnessing unsaturated flow of fluid utilizing a conductor of fluid having a tubarc porous microstructure are disclosed.  The conductor of fluid may be configured as a reversible unsaturated siphon.  Fluid can be conducted from a region of higher fluid matric potential to a region of lower fluid matric potential utilizing a reversible unsaturated siphon with tubarc porous microstructure (e.g., positive zone to negative zone).  The fluid may then be delivered from the higher fluid matric potential zone to the lower fluid matric potential zone through the reversible unsaturated siphon with tubarc porous microstructure, thereby permitting the fluid to be harnessed through the hydrodynamic fluid matric potential gradient.  The fluid is reversibly transportable utilizing the tubarc porous microstructure whenever the fluid matric potential gradient changes direction.”

Unless I am wrong, the region of higher fluid matric potential is the “saturated zone” of claim 1 although it doesn’t need to be “saturated” for fluid transfer to occur.  Again, unless I am wrong, the region of lower matric potential is the “unsaturated zone” of claim 1.  However, I would note that the above paragraph differs from the language of claim 1 in one significant aspect.  The delivery step in claim 1 is from the unsaturated zone (the lower fluid matric potential zone) to the saturated zone (the higher fluid matric potential zone) while the paragraph delivers liquid in the opposite direction.  That is why I drew the arrow showing the fluid transport/movement of the delivery step in the opposite direction of the conducting step.  If you intended the delivery of the fluid in claim 1 to be in the same direction as the conducting step, then the “saturated zone” and the “unsaturated zone” are reversed in the delivery step from what you intended.  If that is the case then your claim language has a problem and does not claim what you intended to claim.  If you did intend for the fluid movement in the delivery step to be in a direction opposite from the conducting step, then the claim language reflects what you wanted.  I do not have a problem with that because the last sentence of the above paragraph clearly teaches that the fluid is transportable either way as long as the relative fluid matric potential gradient is in the direction that the fluid is moving.  However, claim 1 does not reflect this change in fluid matric potential gradient and could be considered incomplete, inoperative or not enabled for that reason. 
               I appreciate your desire to use appropriate terminology to describe your invention.  I would love to have limits on the language that one uses to describe an invention.  However the courts have decided that an inventor can choose the terminology that they use to describe their inventions.  This includes creating names to describe something that they have done or invented.  I see that you appear to have created the name “tubarc” to describe the porous microstructure that you have invented.  Just as you exercised your right to create a name for a structure that you have invented, others have a right to use available terminology or create their own names to describe their inventions.  That can make it hard to search for a claimed invention: either because there are thousands of references in a computer search (wick/wicking) or only a few (unsaturated hydraulic conductivity). 
               With regard to my credentials and/or training, it doesn’t matter if I have a PhD or only a BS degree.  I am not hiding it.  If you want to search the literature, you can find both papers I have coauthored and my degree.  But I doubt that you would feel any different about what I say even if I had a BS or PhD in hydrology.  I choose to not identify the degree I hold because whether it is a BS, Masters or PhD if I am wrong, I am wrong and if I am right, I am right.  While being trained in the area that one examines is helpful, it is not required.  What is the difference between one that has newly graduated with a BS degree and one that has graduated with a PhD degree?   A few more years of study and work/research in the subject of their degree.  If one gains the same knowledge and experience through years on a job after obtaining a BS degree, are they somehow less than the new PhD with no work experience?  I have seen people that proudly display titles after their name that show years of schooling make the same mistakes that one without a degree make.  I have also seen people without significant schooling say things that showed a lot of though and understanding.  For that reason, I try not to look at who people are or what titles they have earned.  Rather I try to look at what it is they say and do.  For that reason I would rather have people judge what I do and say for what it is rather than who said it.  Because as I said above if I am wrong, I am wrong and if I am right, I am right regardless of who I am. 

No comments:

Post a Comment