Wow! Another one (I'm working on a 3rd!)

[D-MAN]

Here is Rice's second, smaller rear-loaded design of great simplicity. This uses a 12" driver and stands approx. 36 inches tall. It is a BOTTOM-exhausting horn, a related animal.

DM

Print Rice_rearloading2.pdf

[D-MAN]

This is a top-firing front-loaded horn, from Ebeger 1977.

DM

Ebejer_TOP-FIRING_HORN_ALL.pdf

[D-MAN]

An earlier Top-firing front-loaded horn from Potter 1955.

DM

Potter_top-firing_front-loaded_ch.pdf

[D-MAN]

A very early example of a top-firing horn from 1934 (BK - before Khorn - heh!) from Ephaim.

DM

Ephriam_top-firing_corner_horn.pdf

[D-MAN]

The top-exhausting concept is entirely viable, and I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, for a corner horn.

It is an under-rated approach. But I intend to leave no stone unturned...

Here is my top-firing patent document, you won't see it for another 2 years! (So get your copy now, heh, heh)...

That's how long it takes to just PUBLISH (not issue) on the USPTO website.

DM

TOP-FIRING_PATENT_DISPLAY.pdf

[D-MAN]

While I'm on the subject of patents in general, here's what patents are and what they do.

Thomas Jefferson set up the US Patent office to promote commerce, essentially.

A patent provides legal protection for a given invention from being illegally copied and manufactured without permission for a period of 20 years. Every 3-1/2 years, a payment has to be made to keep the patent "active" (this is fairly recent). In the past, it used to be a one-time fee which was good for the whole 20 years.

An invention has to be something that you can make. Recipes for food, for example, are not patentable, because they are not manufactured, etc. However, a shovel or a hammer is. So a shoivel or a hammer can be patentable. There are hundreds of hammer patents, for example, each one being slightly different than the previous. This gave rise to the need for an "appearance" patent, now called a Design patent, because hammers all tend to technically do the same thing, utility-wise, don't they? Although, if a hammer does soemthing different that all preceding prior-art hammers, then it qualifies as a "new" invention. If it is in the shape of a fish-head, that is also new if it doesn't look like other previous fish-head hammers, etc...

There are 2 types of patents, a Utility patent like mine, or a Design patent. Did you know that PWK had a design patent on the Khorn 1956 - however, it's the model "C" without the riser, he never patented the best-looking one, the "B" with the riser that we are all familiar with. However, a Design patent only keeps someone from making something that LOOKS (in appearance) like the patented device, not how its actually made.

An issued patent is a legal description of an invention which either is new to the art (the state of the art"), or is an improvement to something that already exists. The improvement has to be new to the art, in such a case. To be new, the invention must not exist in the market place OR be published or described in a document available to the public at any time in the past.

So basically, a patent is a description of an invention (or an improvement) that exists in 4 parts, the first being the "Abstract", a drawing, textual description, and third, and most importantly, the legal-ese "claims".

The Abstract is a paragraph which sets forth the specific properties of the invention for quickly ascertaining what the entire patent is about.

The drawing has callouts called "reference numbers" that allow the parts of the drawing to be named and numbered for reference in the text portion of the patent. The same numbers can also be referenced in the claims.

The claims are the most important part of the document, and they are the hardest to come up with. The claims serve to limit the invention to a specific set of elements (or parts). The claims have to be a single sentence, but multiple limits to the original sentence can be added by referencing back to the original (called an "independent claim) claim sentence. They can also reference any preceding "dependent" claim.

The multiple claims are taken as a whole, the dependent claims are considered to take on all of the attributes of the all of the referenced claims (by number) above it.

The text section is usually in 3 sections, the first being the "setup" for the invention which places it in context with the state of the art (the "art" being whatever field the invention fits in). In the case of my patents, they are exponential horn speaker enclosures, so that is the "field" that I refer to in the patents. This section sets out the problems with the current art that the invention (supposedly) provides a solution to. So you outline the issues that your invention solves here, describe the level of knowlege needed to comprehend the invention by supplying references and a discussion. Note that I said supposedly; in the case of a loudspeaker, it only has to SEEM to work as indicated. The degree to which the invention actually or scientifically "works" cannot be accurately and legally determined in a patent. That's not what a patent is for.

There is a "Description of the Drawings" section which describes what each respective FIGURE in the drawings represents.

The second textual part is the "Summary of the Invention", which is used to inform the general public (i.e., those who may not know or understand the technical issues involved) to read and get a "superficial" or more general understanding of the invention. This is the "quick overview" of the invention which lists its objects (design goals) and advantages, such as how it solves the previously mentioned problems with the current art.

The third portion of the textual section is the "Description of the Invention" which is the technical part which describes what it is, how its built, its "specs" as it were. The description should be detailed enough that someone with a knowlege of the art could actually make the invention. Where this gets tricky is that it can be assumed that the person is reasonably knowlegable in the art, so alot of well-known things pertaining to the particular field need not be specifically pointed out. The specific ELEMENTS that make up the essence of the invention NEED to be put forth, though.

The CLAIMS section then says EXACTLY what you think needs legal protection to keep others from "stealing" your invention and calling it their own. It has to specifically describe your invention.

The patent (when published on the USPTO website) becomes the de facto published description available to the public, fullfilling the above requirement for what is "new" and what is "prior art". Once published, like mine are, they become public property, and that means that nobody can patent the invention again EVEN IF THEY DON'T ACTUALLY ISSUE! This is the "published description available to the public" thing that I mentioned in the beginning.

DM

[cvandec]

Hi Dana,

Just found this thread on your patents while searching for Jub info.

I have more or less finished my Jub clone plans, mostly based on jwc's work and yours (thanks!) but would love to look at the plans of your latest creation if you can send them. The ability to change drivers is a a fantastic feature.

The address is

cvandecasteele at alice.it

Thanks a lot

Christian

[PrestonTom]

Hi Dana,

Just found this thread on your patents while searching for Jub info.

I have more or less finished my Jub clone plans, mostly based on jwc's work and yours (thanks!) but would love to look at the plans of your latest creation if you can send them. The ability to change drivers is a a fantastic feature.

The address is

cvandecasteele at alice.it

Thanks a lot

Christian

Hello Christian,

You have our collective interest ....

Please tell us about your Jubilee project.

Good Luck,

-Tom

[cvandec]

Nothing special to tell yet. I use the large EV HR9040A horns with TAD TD-4002s on top of corner shaped BR with Jensen style vents (I could attach a pic if I knew how to do it). Mid-highs are way better than the Altec 1505/288 I was using before but I have always wanted to replace the BR with a basshorn. I have known the Khorns since I started to build audio systems in the mid sixties but I think they really need corners (false corners are too big for my room). When I saw PWL's picture with the Jubilee years ago, I thought it was a Khorn variant. I have discovered what it really is only a few weeks ago and started to explore this forum...

Christian

[WMcD]

Congrats on the patents, Dale.

Let me be a stickler. Food is a patentable subject matter these days, as are business methods.

As you say, under the old rules there were no periodic fees on utility patents. Those had a life of 17 years from date of issue.

Now the term is 20 years from date of application with some adjustment for delays caused by the PTO.

Gil

[D-MAN]

Sheesh, Gil - it's DANA - not DALE! How long have we been on the forum arguing about stuff?!

Well, it says in the patent rules (off the USPTO website) that recipes and/or food are not patentable items because prior art cannot be accurately determined.

15" Jubilee?

==========

I also did a 15" version of the Jubilee,i.e., a bifurcated throat design, etc., however, I came to certain conclusions and decided that a bifurcated throat design made the thing too big (wider than it is tall) for 15" drivers, and I considered that to simply be too large and cumbersome to be of any interest. The real clincher is that I measured my available corners, and I simply do not have the room required! That was enough for me!

I went with an alternative design which has some added benefits of utility while maintaining a comparable footprint size with the genuine Jubilee itself. I considered having a comparable footprint size as being paramount.

The inherent demands on width using a bifurcated throat folding pattern of acceptable channel width (2.5") would be approx. 44" wide, and I for one don't have that much available room in my corners. Additionally, the maximum throat size required by the 2.5" channel width would limit the throat opening to 54 sq. inches, not much of a gain, if any, compared to the 12" Jubilee. Not enough to make it worth doing, IMO. Any increase in the channel width(s) would cause a subsequent increase in overall footprint size, so that seems like a very limiting consideration as to the throat size and the appropriate drivers that could make use of a rather small throat opening, etc. Basically, the rather small throat size limitation of around 50 sq. in. is better suited to 12" drivers than 15's.

So I decided the Jubilee bifurcated throat design and folding pattern, etc. is best left to the 12" drivers it was designed around rather than attempting to use a 15" driver. So I abandoned the bifurcated throat in favor of a more adaptable design. This is not to say that a 15" Jubilee-style enclosure is not technically possible, only that I felt that it requires too many compromises and limitations in order to make it work IMO.

My figuring is that given a more compact enclosure that does essentially the same thing compared to a larger one, I would naturally choose the smaller of the two designs. Add to that the benefits of additional utility, and that clinches the deal for me.

I did, however, come up with a satisfactory bifurcated-throat design using dual-15" drivers in a Khorn-sized footprint. It is not a free-standing version, though, like the Khorn. It's much simpler to build and is therefore lighter and more compact, but like we all know, there are considerations and compromises with any folded horn. In this case, it won't crossover as high as the J-style horns. Whether THAT is a main concern is up to you. Because of the constraints of acceptable channel width versus overall footprint size, the design is specific to a certain class of small-mouth/small Vb drivers, exactly like I was saying above. The more driver-specific your design becomes, the performance capability may increase, but the more limitations are imposed, too. Choose your tradeoffs, because there are going to be some!

DM

[WMcD]

Sorry about that Dana. A simple error. I'll call you D-Man from now on to avoid any error.

Maybe you can point me to that rule. I tried searching the USPTO site for food and recipe and did not find that to which you are referring. Maybe their search engine is as good as ours.

It may be that they are talking about a much more narrow principle. I would truly like to read more without downloading the most recent version of the MPEP.

On the subject, though: It is interesting to look at USPs 4,446,163; 4,297,378; and 4,612,198.

The latter may well be the patent on the Pop-Tart to Pillsbury!

As you may know there is a classification system for subject matter.

Class 426 is entitled "Food or Edible Material." There are more than a hundred subclasses. The Pop-Tart patent is in that Class 426.

Gil

[homemadeheresy]

Looks like you taken traits from the folded Heritage line and massaged them into something familiar but different.

Most importantly how do they sound? What is you upper frequency cut-off and how low do they go? No not the mambo, the speakers[]

[D-MAN]

Like George Augspurger once said - "of a thousand ways to fold a horn, this is one of them".

Nobody is going to come up with a completely new way to fold a horn, if that's what you mean - that cannot be done, because "all the notes have already been played".

But not all the possible combinations.

DM

[D-MAN]

Hey, Gil, I've looked but I can't find the actual reference without alot of further digging. But I will say this, the Pop-Tart is more easily defined in terms of prior art than, say, a ham sandwich. Also, in reference to recipes, how would one go about determining the prior art? It is logical that in terms of food, unless a very specific example of a particular process or manufactured product is produced, prior art cannot be adequately determined and the invention clearly determined as being a non-obvious "improvement" over prior art.

The Pop-Tart patent is not only an invented "new form" of "food" that did not exist historically especially due to its packaging, but also represented the result of a discrete and "new" manufacturing and/or packaging process. I would agree that it was patentable (at the time).

But like I suggested above, as a food product, a pizza would not be patentable in itself. A particular manufacturing process/packaging method that for instance, would make for microwavable frosen pizza bites (etc.) might be, as prior art concerned with pizza bites would be limited to frozen foodstuffs available since the invention of microwave ovens and freezers, etc.

However, by itself, unless clearly a "new" invention, most food-related patentable material is going to be process or packaging inventions rather than a recipe, BUT it may include in combination a list of ingredients which sets it apart from its ilk (what makes Capt. Crunch different from all other box cereals). However, a list of ingredients by itself would not be patentable in that 1) how would one determine whether how much sugar (for example) could be included or excluded from the recipe before it is no longer what was "patented"? It is unlikely that a pure-recipe patent was ever issued.

We would be inundated with hamburger patents in such a case, and you couldn't put a tomato or pickles on you BBQ hamburger without a license!

It only makes sense.

Dana

[WMcD]

I'm a little sheepish over calling Dana, Dale. Sorry again.

I believe this came about because I watch the History Channel while visiting this site.

There is a commerical for Tractor Supply Co. at Christmas. Wife statue explains to a friend statue that husband statue Dale is bringing supplies to the Christmas pagent. But she has voluntered him for more work. He winds up as one of the wise men.

Hence the use of "Dale."

It is interesting that in an early version of the commercial the punch line was wise man Dale (realizing he is stuck there for the duration of the season) using a religious name as a mild explitive. Now that has been changed to him just saying "Grrrr."

Gil

[D-MAN]

Oh well, that's just good marketing then, ain't it?

Dale (ha!)

[D-MAN]

Well, the USPTO has cashed the check, so I know they've got it.

Here is the patent document on the 215.

DM

PATENT_DISPLAY.pdf

[D-MAN]

The prior art example of mine referenced in the previous "215" patent application.

DM

[sheltie dave]

Dana, just to let you know, I still have the plans for the Altec folded. I was going to do this first project with my uncle, who has a complete woodshop, and eventually I probably will end up with with the shop. Life has intervened, and he has had another heart surgery, and then lung/liver cancer, so it looks like I won't be moving on this until Uncle Don passes.

Congrats on the filing, and hopefully it will be a while before I can work on the build project, strange as it seems to say that[]