Template for Cutter Teeth Indexing Table : Patent

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I am intrigued by the identified Applicant for this brief patent: **LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DGB1383793A

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Applicant or Inventor? A clear case of nominative determinism, it was either this or dentistry.

[john halfpennyParticipant @johnhalfpenny52803]

Why intrigued?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by John Haine on 16/07/2021 10:08:33:

Applicant or Inventor? A clear case of nominative determinism, it was either this or dentistry.

.

Applicant [as per my opening line]

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by john halfpenny on 16/07/2021 11:03:36:

Why intrigued?

.

Because the Secretary of State for Defence applied for a patent for an apparently innocuous and relatively trivial invention.

MichaelG.

[Bill Davies 2Participant @billdavies2]

Especially as there were, at that time, much better ways of measuring pitch and concentricity errors in gears.

Bill

[john halfpennyParticipant @johnhalfpenny52803]

There are lots of reasons why a patent application would be filed, even for what may seem to be a trivial invention (btw, this is a patent of addition). One might be to establish whether the inventor was entitled to a monetary award.

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

My dad worked for the ministry and had a couple of spin off patents which would have been held his employer. However, certainly in the 60s anyway, the US insisted that patents were filed by individuals. What's more, every patent filed earned a fee of 1$. My dad got a postal order for 6s 8d through the post (3 dollars to the pound in those days).

Rod

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by john halfpenny on 16/07/2021 13:48:50:

… (btw, this is a patent of addition). …

.

Fair point, john

So, for completeness: **LINK**

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search?q=pn%3DGB1383691A

MichaelG.

[john halfpennyParticipant @johnhalfpenny52803]

Patent law is not the same in all countries, though in Europe it has been somewhat harmonised since 1978. US patent applications have always been filed in the name of the inventor(s), whereas elsewhere the owner is the applicant.

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

I suspect that at the time all patents developed in defence establishments were filed in the name of the secretary of state, so I don't find that a particular surprise. More amusing for me was that the inventor is one Denis Victor TOOTH…

[john halfpennyParticipant @johnhalfpenny52803]

Still true John.

[Anonymous]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 16/07/2021 12:21:18:

Because the Secretary of State for Defence applied for a patent for an apparently innocuous and relatively trivial invention.

Applying for patents for things that fall out of ongoing R&D is SOP for many organisations whether actually relevant to their business or not.

In this case the Secretary of Defence is probably a "rubber stamp" situation for all patent applications from certain departments …. not that it necessarily goes across his/her desk.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by John Haine on 16/07/2021 15:45:10:

[…]

More amusing for me was that the inventor is one Denis Victor TOOTH…

.

Yes I did notice, John

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts