Leslie, thank you for posting this. It makes clear some issues concerning the patenting of the pan.
I was made aware of this patent a few years ago by Simeon "Sanch" Sandiford. I saw a copy briefly at his shop, and thought I had gotten an electronic copy. I could never find it, though, so now I can read it. It makes some issues apparent.
This is a "design patent" not a "utility patent" There is a gigantic difference, Google "design patent" and read for yourself.
A "design patent" covers only the specific physical layout, not the broader concept behind it. In this case, he claims 49 notes, although the drawing and description seems to show 36 (37 if you include one in the center inside the inner circle). C is at the bottom. It is divided into the traditional spiderweb layout, and the notes in that spiderweb are laid out according to the circle of fifths.. Because it is a design patent, that is all that is patented, not the concept of using the circle of fifths as applied to a modern pan that doesn't actually have the spiderweb grooved into it, with "1/4 inch" grooves.
A utility patent, with properly drawn up "claims" would have probably covered all modern tenor pans, which evolved from the original spiderweb design. That is the weakness of the design patent, it only covers a very specific physical "design", not the concept behind it, and therefore is very easy to work around.
Furthermore, any patent, design or utility, would have long since expired. I am not familiar with Trinidad patent law, but in the USA, it would have been good for 14 years. A utility patent in the USA granted in the 1960's would have been valid for 17 years from the date of grant, since 1995, utility patents in the USA would be valid for 20 years from the date of application.
Nonetheless, while this patent is not useful for stopping anyone from manufacturing a pan, even a spiderweb pan, it does document "prior art". No one should be able to patent a "spiderweb pan" or patent broad claims involving the "fourths and fifths" layout of the notes on any tenor pan, either in a design patent or a utility patent.
A disclaimer: I am an engineer, not a lawyer, more specifically a patent lawyer practicing in Trinidad. Others may have differing views on the subject.
To keep this discussion on the same page, please see my other comments there.
IMHO but learnt from the school of practice in the art. A utility patent protects a new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof or in a simplified sense, a utility patent on a product protects the function or structure of an invention or what it does as apart from a design patent which simply protects the way it looks. The right granted by the patent is, in the language of the statute, "the right to exclude others from making, using or selling" the invention. What is granted in not the right to make, use or sell, but to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention.
Replies
Leslie, thank you for posting this. It makes clear some issues concerning the patenting of the pan.
I was made aware of this patent a few years ago by Simeon "Sanch" Sandiford. I saw a copy briefly at his shop, and thought I had gotten an electronic copy. I could never find it, though, so now I can read it. It makes some issues apparent.
This is a "design patent" not a "utility patent" There is a gigantic difference, Google "design patent" and read for yourself.
A "design patent" covers only the specific physical layout, not the broader concept behind it. In this case, he claims 49 notes, although the drawing and description seems to show 36 (37 if you include one in the center inside the inner circle). C is at the bottom. It is divided into the traditional spiderweb layout, and the notes in that spiderweb are laid out according to the circle of fifths.. Because it is a design patent, that is all that is patented, not the concept of using the circle of fifths as applied to a modern pan that doesn't actually have the spiderweb grooved into it, with "1/4 inch" grooves.
A utility patent, with properly drawn up "claims" would have probably covered all modern tenor pans, which evolved from the original spiderweb design. That is the weakness of the design patent, it only covers a very specific physical "design", not the concept behind it, and therefore is very easy to work around.
Furthermore, any patent, design or utility, would have long since expired. I am not familiar with Trinidad patent law, but in the USA, it would have been good for 14 years. A utility patent in the USA granted in the 1960's would have been valid for 17 years from the date of grant, since 1995, utility patents in the USA would be valid for 20 years from the date of application.
Nonetheless, while this patent is not useful for stopping anyone from manufacturing a pan, even a spiderweb pan, it does document "prior art". No one should be able to patent a "spiderweb pan" or patent broad claims involving the "fourths and fifths" layout of the notes on any tenor pan, either in a design patent or a utility patent.
A disclaimer: I am an engineer, not a lawyer, more specifically a patent lawyer practicing in Trinidad. Others may have differing views on the subject.
To keep this discussion on the same page, please see my other comments there.
IMHO but learnt from the school of practice in the art. A utility patent protects a new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof or in a simplified sense, a utility patent on a product protects the function or structure of an invention or what it does as apart from a design patent which simply protects the way it looks. The right granted by the patent is, in the language of the statute, "the right to exclude others from making, using or selling" the invention. What is granted in not the right to make, use or sell, but to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention.
Respect
Boom!!!