New cable with magic properties

[mtrycrafts]

This is a different case altogether. ...

Well, Hawksfor has some very interesting peer reviewed papers at AES, yet he published a grossly flawed paper in an audio magazine and refused to discuss his experiment with Jneutron. As smart person going off the deep end. Pauling must be smart to get 2 Nobels by himself, then goes off the deep end with vitamin C.
Two smart people going off the deep end.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
I read AES papers from many people. So (in this thread) I mention Hawkesford and get attacked as if I wrote his paper myself. Hey, I'm just interested in what the man says. I'm not marrying him.
...

It wasn't an attack but information passed about him and that paper that has been covered in the distant past.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Colin
There is a subjective nature to liking music or not liking music that is entirely outside of a scientific measurement discussion. If you like a particular musician or album, that's entirely up to you and really nobody else's opinion is better or more valuable than your own. Liking music is all about opinions. And where opinions matter, yours is as solid and valuable as anybody else's.

In the realm of measurements however we aren't relying on opinions as a basis point. There are real measurements to tell us if something is performing or not. One of the tell tale signs of snake oil products is their complete lack of measurement data relevant to the extraordinary claim being made. Any "change" by a snake oil product is considered an improvement, unless its not, then you try the next product in the line.

The difference between the two, opinions and measurements, is often defined by the question at hand. There is a place for opinions, and a place for measurements. Often, two rationale people can look at the same measurements (or set of facts in another setting other than audio) and come up with two different sets of meaning. That's human beings for you. But the measurements stand and they are what they are. Opinions and meaning are another story.

It is more than measurements that are important. It is about audible differences between two audio items/components.

 

[Bucknekked]

It is more than measurements that are important. It is about audible differences between two audio items/components.

mtrycrafts:
I agree with your statement. I always think audible differences are the most important thing when comparing equipment. No argument there. We are on the same page.

However, it crosses over in to the last thing I said in the post. One can take a set of facts, or observations, experienced by two rational people, and end up with different explanations or conclusions by the folks involved.

Let's listen to a song on an audio rig. "Did you hear that?" "I sure did". "It was awful". "No, it was wonderful". Same song on the same equipment. i can measure the hell out of it. But, I can't explain the two reactions or conclusions. Measurements will stand, but, peoples conclusions aren't always in the same category. And just because a measurement indicates an audible difference because we swap in or out a piece of equipment, doesn't mean two rational people will agree on what, if anything, the change means.

We are safe in saying there is x or y measurable difference between two items in an audio system. We are also safe in saying that the x or y difference should be audible (or not). Where we get in to quicksand in a hurry is attaching context or meaning to that difference. Some will say "sounds better". Some will say "sounds worse". Some will say "change, what change?"

This magic cable thing is problematic because as far as I can tell, for those who say "these magic cables make the system sound better" there is no measurement data to back it up. Only anecdotal claims.

 

[Mr._Clark]

"f it's a USPTO patent application, well, they allow almost anything . . ."

Not true.


"What proportion of patent applications filed at the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) are eventually granted? Many experts have
suggested that the USPTO approves nearly all applications, blaming
this apparent leniency for many problems with the U.S. patent system.
To test this assumption, we follow the prosecution histories of 2.15
million U.S. patent applications from 1996 to mid-2013. We find that
only 55.8% of the applications emerged as patents without using
continuation procedures to create related applications. The allowance
rate has decreased substantially over time, particularly for
applications in the “Drugs and Medical Instruments” and “Computers
and Communications” fields. Furthermore, applications filed by small
firms were less likely to emerge as patents than those filed by large
firms. We discuss the implications of our findings for inventors,
policymakers, and legal scholars."

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=yjolt

 

[Bucknekked]

Not true.


"What proportion of patent applications filed at the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) are eventually granted? Many experts have
suggested that the USPTO approves nearly all applications, blaming
this apparent leniency for many problems with the U.S. patent system.
To test this assumption, we follow the prosecution histories of 2.15
million U.S. patent applications from 1996 to mid-2013. We find that
only 55.8% of the applications emerged as patents without using
continuation procedures to create related applications. The allowance
rate has decreased substantially over time, particularly for
applications in the “Drugs and Medical Instruments” and “Computers
and Communications” fields. Furthermore, applications filed by small
firms were less likely to emerge as patents than those filed by large
firms. We discuss the implications of our findings for inventors,
policymakers, and legal scholars."

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=yjolt

your post said "not true". But, I didn't see any reference to what "wasn't true".

The text you included referred to the fact not as many patents get granted as one might think.
I can agree with that. I work in the technology world and know several patent holders.
Its a big deal to win patent, and it isn't an easy process. It seems to get tougher every year.

Just interested in what is "not true"................

 

[Mr._Clark]

your post said "not true". But, I didn't see any reference to what "wasn't true".

The text you included referred to the fact not as many patents get granted as one might think.
I can agree with that. I work in the technology world and know several patent holders.
Its a big deal to win patent, and it isn't an easy process. It seems to get tougher every year.

Just interested in what is "not true"................

The post I was replying to said "they [the USPTO] allow almost anything"

The USPTO only allows about 56% of patent applications. Thus, it is clearly not true that the USPTO will allow almost anything.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Oh really? Check out this patent:

Note " ... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light. ..."

For some reason, the US Governmnent was not inclined to declare that one as a Strategic technology, whereby they can redact the public record of the patent, mark it Classified, and use it without compensation. I baffles me why NASA would not want to communicate with distant worlds at speeds that exceed that of light, but hey, what do I know. Maybe it's budget cuts.

I'm not sure the ratio of applications to granted patents is relevant; the sheer number of applications is not a factor the USPTO has any control over. It's what they grant patents for that addresses the question of patent quality.

If the patents so approved in the past were of adequate quality, there would be no need to tighten the requirements; thus even the USPTO realizes there is a problem.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Since we are discussing some silly patents, I stumbled on this:

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/610/practicality-of-faster-than-light-travel

interesting answer there

The applicable limitation here is utility. Broadly speaking, utility means that the invention must have some practical use. As described, the invention does have a practical use, which is “to transmit and receive electromagnetic waves”. That the waves allow faster-than-light transmission of information is not intrinsic in the workings of the invention. The invention may be worthless from a business perspective if it only allows traditional light-speed transmission, but that is solely the applicant's problem — if he wishes to squander his resources on an invention that is inferior (in a business sense) to other known methods, he may. So to my non-legal eye the patent doesn't seem to be dismissable on these grounds.

and

A further requirement is that the wording of the patent must enable a reader skilled in the art to reproduce the invention. Since the claimed conclusion that the communication signal travels faster than light is not inherent in building an apparatus that embodies the method, the patent is not invalid on these grounds alone.

and

However, in general, it is not the job of patent examiners to judge whether a claimed invention contradicts the known laws of physics.

and finally


In any case, there is a loophole in the claim wording:

thereby sending and receiving the communication signal at a speed faster than a known speed of light.

A known speed of light — which could be the speed of light in a medium with a high refractive index. Admittedly, this medium would be the “new dimension” that is mentioned in the background but not in the description of the preferred embodiment — the interpretation would take some work to defend.

 

[killdozzer]

Here are link for the myth explanation:
https://www.snopes.com/science/bumblebees.asp

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/07/29/4056181.htm

The first assumption was that the bees' wings were flat plates that were mostly smooth (like aeroplane wings). The second assumption was that as air flows over an insect's wings, it would separate easily from the wing. Both of these assumptions turned out to be totally incorrect — and the origin of our myth.

The aerodynamicist's initial rough calculations 'proved' that insects could not fly. But that was not the end of the story.

Exactly! Thanks for the link, I knew this already, but it was interesting to recount. As I said; whoever saw that wing surface of bumble bee's wings is not enough for gliding was correct and we all needed this if we were to understand what different type of flying technique bees are using.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

I know of no-one who denies that cable capacitance matters.

It's well down the list. With the exceptions of poorly designed output stages and extremely long interconnects, any reasonable total cable capacitance is OK. (2000 pF total is reasonable)

2000pF is the total capacitance of 20 meters of Star-Quad Canare or Mogami cable in single-ended (floating shield) or differential (XLR) application. You are going to get audible differences when A/B'ing that cable versus a short length.

" ... However, in general, it is not the job of patent examiners to judge whether a claimed invention contradicts the known laws of physics. ..."

That explains a great deal. Do you suppose that it contradicts my earlier assertion of "almost anything"?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Exactly! Thanks for the link, I knew this already, but it was interesting to recount. As I said; whoever saw that wing surface of bumble bee's wings is not enough for gliding was correct and we all needed this if we were to understand what different type of flying technique bees are using.

If you are ever interested in more on that see if you can locate this paper:
American Scientist, Vol 77, March Apr 1989, page 164-169.
It has graphs, measurements, etc. It may be a journal?

 

[mtrycrafts]

2000pF is the total capacitance of 20 meters of Star-Quad Canare or Mogami cable in single-ended (floating shield) or differential (XLR) application. You are going to get audible differences when A/B'ing that cable versus a short length.

" ... However, in general, it is not the job of patent examiners to judge whether a claimed invention contradicts the known laws of physics. ..."

That explains a great deal. Do you suppose that it contradicts my earlier assertion of "almost anything"?

Oh, you are talking about interconnect cables? Yes, that can have a tremendous effect on the HF audio band depending on the output impedance and input impedance of components where used between.
Passive preamps are notorious for having the output directly from the volume pot that has a very high output impedance. You don't need a long interconnect there to have an effect down to 5kHz.

I was under the impression that you were talking speaker cables.

 

[Speedskater]

In my post #46, the 2000 pF number is for more modern interconnects with low output impedance's and high input impedance's. Not to musical instruments (guitars), passive pre-amps and some tube setups.

 

[Speedskater]

2000pF is the total capacitance of 20 meters of Star-Quad Canare or Mogami cable in single-ended (floating shield) or differential (XLR) application. You are going to get audible differences when A/B'ing that cable versus a short length.......................

Here we go again.
From Linkitz:
Let's put a little realism into high frequency loss due to long interconnects.

If we have an interconnect cable with 2nF (2000pF) total capacitance.

If the output impedance from the preamp is 1kohm (high) and the input impedance of the power amp is 10kohm, then the effective impedance is 10k//1k or 910ohm.
With the 2nF cable this gives a lowpass 3dB cutoff frequency of Fc = 1/(2piRC) = 87 kHz, which is still far above the needed frequency range. With a typical capacitance cable the cutoff would be at 350 kHz. If the passive preamp has 10kohm output resistance Fc would still be 70kHz.

(note that this is beyond worst case)

 

[Mr._Clark]

Oh really? Check out this patent:

Note " ... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light. ..."

For some reason, the US Governmnent was not inclined to declare that one as a Strategic technology, whereby they can redact the public record of the patent, mark it Classified, and use it without compensation. I baffles me why NASA would not want to communicate with distant worlds at speeds that exceed that of light, but hey, what do I know. Maybe it's budget cuts.

I'm not sure the ratio of applications to granted patents is relevant; the sheer number of applications is not a factor the USPTO has any control over. It's what they grant patents for that addresses the question of patent quality.

If the patents so approved in the past were of adequate quality, there would be no need to tighten the requirements; thus even the USPTO realizes there is a problem.

If you had said that the USPTO has issued some silly patents, or that the USPTO has issued some patents that it clearly should not have, I would agree with you.

But, that's not what you said:

"You can look up any existing patent if you are curious as to the magic employed in this case but will probably have to wait until it's granted, and if it's a USPTO patent application, well, they allow almost anything (because it's funded by patent fees, so no grant, no money to fund the USPTO)."

All serious observers agree that the USPTO has issued some patents it should not have. This does not mean that the USPTO will "allow almost anything." A 56% allowance rate is not allowing "almost anything". A few bad patents is also not allowing almost anything.

Your assertion that the USPTO allows almost anything "because . . . no grant, no money to fund the USPTO)" is an assertion that the USPTO refuses to follow the law because it needs fees. This is a very serious assertion, and it would require instructions from the USPTO management that would need to be followed by all employees.

I'm very interested in any actual evidence you are aware of that supports your assertion. In other words, show me some evidence that the USPTO fails to follow the law "because" it needs to collect fees.

The patent office issues rules and examination guidelines that the examiners are required to follow. For example, here's a link to the material concerning obviousness in view of the US Supreme Court KSR case:

https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidelines-training-materials-view-ksr

As you can see, there are specific guidelines for each art area. I invite you to carefully read the guidelines and point out some specific examples in which the USPT is incorrectly applying the Supreme Court KSR decision so it can allow patents that should not be allowed and collect fees.

Here's the USPTO examination guidelines for subject matter eligibility in view of the US Supreme Court Alice decision:

https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility

Once again, I invite you to show me some specific examples showing how the USPTO is incorrectly applying the Supreme Court Alice decision "because" it needs to collect fees.

I'll assume you know that the federal patent laws are written by congress, and the USPTO, an executive branch agency, has no power to change the laws. The USPTO does, however have the power to implement patent rules.

Here's a link to the US patent laws:

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

I invite you to carefully read the patent laws and point to a specific law that the USPTO is not following "because" it needs to collect fees.

Here's a link to the patent rules:

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_rules.pdf

I invite you to read the rules carefully and identify rules that authorize examiners to allow patent applications contrary to the federal statutues so that the USPTO can collect fees.

The USPTO also requires examiners to follow the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP):

https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/current#/current/d0e18.html

"This Manual is published to provide U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners, applicants, attorneys, agents, and representatives of applicants with a reference work on the practices and procedures relative to the prosecution of patent applications before the USPTO. It contains instructions to examiners, as well as other material in the nature of information and interpretation, and outlines the current procedures which the examiners are required or authorized to follow in appropriate cases in the normal examination of a patent application. The Manual does not have the force of law or the force of the rules in Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations."

I invite you to read the MPEP carefully and identify were it instructs examiners "to allow almost anything."

I'm a practicing patent lawyer and I've been dealing directly with the USPTO for about 10 hours a day for over 20 years now. I would guess that I have prosecuted well over 1,000 patent applications, and I've read hundreds of file histories and evaluated hundreds of patents for both patentability and infringement. I read court decisions, BPAI decisions, and internal examination and training guidelines the USPTO issues. I also personally know several practicing patent lawyers who were previously examiners.

I have never heard anyone with any actual experience dealing with the USPTO that
they allow almost anything (because it's funded by patent fees, so no grant, no money to fund the USPTO)."

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mr. Clark, thanks for your salient response to an uninformed member.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

The USPTO is underfunded, at a minimum in the context that is severely backlogged. It does not make sense to assume the examiners are unaware of this situation.

He or She can look at the rules and decide in favour of granting an non-obvious, apparently without prior art (the determination of which is limited; it in essence requires the examiner to know everything printed in White Papers, University research, and the world of common discourse), and no need to consider the laws of Physics, or decide on the side of denying it.

Given a patent application where the examiner is on the fence, what do you expect he would do?

Referring to the number of applications approved by percentage is completely irrelevant. The USPTO has no method or means to control application volume, therefore it's a moving goalpost. If that argument is none the less proposed, I would counter that the reputation of quality affects that number, skewing it high, since it would attract dubious applicants.

Any nation that is signatory to the World Trade Association (WTO, about 150 of roughly 220 World Nations) agrees to uphold the IP of each and every one of it's members (which is why, for example, Apple applies for it's initial patents in Jamaica).

But with regard to USPTO applications, there is thusly an incentive to apply to the Patent Office of any nation that grants the most dubious patent protection or applies the most liberal rules.

For example:
USPTO allows and has granted many software patents.

Canada (from the Government of Canada website):
" ... A patent is granted only for the physical embodiment of an idea (for example, the description of a possible door lock) or for a process that produces something tangible or that can be sold. You cannot patent a scientific principle, an abstract theorem, an idea, some methods of doing business or a computer program.

The EU similarly explicitly defines computer programs as un-patentable.

My experience with the USPTO is limited (my brother has several Canadian patents); I can only go by the comments of Patent Attorneys (two from an office in WashingtonDC, one from an office in Chicago) I've known through other business. They don't disagree with my position.

 

[highfigh]

The post I was replying to said "they [the USPTO] allow almost anything"

The USPTO only allows about 56% of patent applications. Thus, it is clearly not true that the USPTO will allow almost anything.

The rest of the statement you partially quoted matters- "without using
continuation procedures to create related applications."

 

[Mr._Clark]

This is becoming tiresome, but I will nevertheless attempt to provide some facts about what actually happens at the USPTO. Please let me know if you are not interested in learning about what actually happens at the USPTO so I can stop wasting my time

You said the USPTO allows almost anything because they need the funds, yet assert that a rejection rate of 45% is "completely irrelevant."

Here's your actual statement: "Referring to the number of applications approved by percentage is completely irrelevant."

Let's test this assertion with a hypothetical. If the USPTO rejected 100% of all patent applications that are filed, would it still be true that "they (sic) [the USPTO] allow almost anything" and this is "because . . . no grant, no money to fund the USPTO"?

You said: "Given a patent application where the examiner is on the fence, what do you expect he would do?"

This is extremely simple. They will reject it. Rejection carries very little downside risk for an examiner (provided it is a reasonable rejection).

If you want to know what actually happens at the USPTO, please read the following: https://www.globalipmatters.com/2017/12/04/patent-quality-chat-how-is-a-uspto-examiners-work-product-reviewed

From the article:

"Providing the Technology Center perspective, Supervisor Christyann Pulliam noted that each examiner has a performance appraisal plan (PAP) which sets forth standards for performance. These standards are based on the examiner’s government scale (GS) level or pay grade and increase with grade. Examples of PAP quality elements include analyzing disclosure and claims for compliance with 35 USC 112 (GS 5 through 15), properly rejecting all rejectable claims in a final rejection (GS 14 and 15), and properly allowing all claims in an allowance (GS 14 and 15)."

Also, examiners are represented by a union: http://www.popa.org/

The performance of examiners is largely determined based on a count system: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/initiatives/patent-examiner-count-system

If you want to learn about what actually happens at the USPTO, I encourage you to read the article entitled "PUTTING YOURSELF IN THE SHOES OF A PATENT EXAMINER: OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) PATENT EXAMINER PRODUCTION (COUNT) SYSTEM"

https://repository.jmls.edu/ripl/vol17/iss1/2/

From the article: "Although examiners are evaluated based on the quality or errors that are later
found in their work, quality of the examiner’s work is a smaller component [35%] of their performance measurement, than production and docket management combined." In other words, 65% of an Examiner's performance evaluation is based on production quantity under the count system.

First, do you really believe that an examiner will receive a poor performance review if the examiner rejects an application in a manner that is consistent with the examination guidelines issued by the USPTO? Do you really believe that the USPTO issues examination guidelines, but secretly issues poor performance reviews if examiners follow the examination guidelines? Do you believe that POPA would look the other way? What do you believe actually happens at the USPTO?

Second, please read Table 3 of the jmls article (if you are not willing to educate yourself, I'm not willing to discuss this any further). "Final" means a final Office Action (i.e. a final rejection). In other words, examiners get productivity points for a final REJECTION. An examiner gets .25 counts for a final. In other words, the examiner is given a productivity reward for a final rejection. "All/Abn" means an allowance or abandonment. As you can see, an examiner gets exactly the same credit (.5 counts) for an abandonment as he does for an allowance.

Do you really believe that examiners do not follow the examination guidelines as they are required to do, but rather make their decisions based on a fear that a rejection will result in less fee revenue for the USPTO? All I can say is that this is a rather incredible belief.

Let's agree for purposes of discussion that the USPTO is underfunded (and that allowing applications somehow solves this). If examiners are actually highly concerned about this as you seem to believe, why don't they just issue first Office Action allowances in almost every case? I encourage you to look at Figure 2 of the Yale Journal article I cited in my prior post (Once again, if you are not interested in learning about what actually happens at the USPTO, please let me know so I can stop wasting my time). As you can see from Figure 2, the first Office Action allowances are issued in only about 10% of applications, and the trend has been down. Why don't examiners just allow all (or almost all) applications in the first Office Action? The USPTO would collect the issue fees right away, and it would greatly reduce the workload on examiners so it would relieve the alleged underfunding problem.

This leads to yet another issue with respect to your assertions. Here's your original statement: "no grant, no money to fund the USPTO." At the time an examiner is examining an application, the USPTO has already collected the filing fees. You could not have meant that the examiner is worried that no one will file applications in the future if he rejects any given application because you later asserted that: "Referring to the number of applications approved by percentage is completely irrelevant. The USPTO has no method or means to control application volume, therefore it's a moving goalpost." Thus, in your view, the USPTO has "no method or means to control application volume" and an examiner could not be worried about losing his job.

I would encourage you to read the USPTO fee schedule: https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule (once again, if you are not interested in learning about what actually happens at the USPTO, please let me know so I can stop wasting my time). I'll use large entity fees for purposes of discussion, but the same basic principles apply for all entities.

After an examiner issues a final rejection, one of three things is likely to happen. First, the applicant can file a Notice of Appeal. The fee for a Notice of Appeal is $800. This is a quick $800 the USPTO collects for almost no work. Applicant must then file an appeal brief and pay a forwarding fee of $2,000. The second thing that is likely to happen is that the applicant will file an RCE. The fee for a first RCE is $1,200 and the fee for a second RCE is $1,700. In other words, the USPTO collects additional fees if an RCE is filed. The third thing that can happen is that the application may be abandoned. This of course does not generate fees for the USPTO, but it also relieves the USPTO of any additional work (other than sending a Notice of Abandonment). The issue fees are $960.

Given the actual fee schedule, do you really believe that examiners allow patent applications because they are worried that the USPTO will not collect the $960 issue fee if the examiner rejects an application?

You do realize that USPTO funding (i.e. fees) are set by the Adminstration? (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/05/23/uspto-3-6-billion-presidents-fy-2018-budget-avoids-fee-diversion/id=83633/). Fees are adjusted to cover projected costs (https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/performance-and-planning/budget-and-financial-information). As I understand it, you seem to believe that the USPTO sets fees that are too low, and then ignores the law and it's own examination guidelines so it can make up the shortfall resulting from the fees it set for itself in some sort of crazy giant shell game.

Do you really believe that an individual examiner will be so concerned that $3.6 billion in fees will not be sufficient that he will ignore the USPTO examination guidelines and allow an application that should be rejected so that the USPTO could potentially get an extra $960 in issue fees?

To me, this seems preposterous.

Let's also assume for purposes of discussion that all foreign countries reject every single patent application that is filed. How would this support your assertion that:
"they (sic) [the USPTO] allow almost anything . . . because . . . no grant, no money to fund the USPTO"? How do foreign laws and foreign patent examination show that the U.S. Patent Office allows almost anything?

You appear to believe that the actual allowance rate at the USPTO is "completely irrelevant" yet you also believe that the laws in foreign countries are somehow highly probative with respect to your assertion that the USPT will allow almost anything because the USPT needs the fees.

Your logic completely escapes me.