The Fins Article in TSJ

I got some pretty amazing matter out of that thing

Sanded bottoms (Greg Liddle via Ames? can’t remember–he got the reason wrong–roughness doesn’t attach boundary layer)

thicker, shorter wooden keel fins (Larry Gephart)

Winged fins working, fun, being used by big names (Skip Frye, Richard Kenvin, Laird Hamilton, A Kidman, Aipa, Geppy, others, according to Geppy, if I remember right)

concaved inside foils being amazing in terms of drive and hold (Rusty Priesendorfer) (Newtonian lift, anyone?)

Flexing at base and throughout fin / direction of weave being major factors (Gerlach/Greenough)

(I see you Roy–hey check this thing out: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD271318&id=PZ4-AAAAEBAJ&dq=surfboard+fin

and this: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD261916&id=BBI9AAAAEBAJ&dq=surfboard+fin

and this: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5062378&id=K5weAAAAEBAJ&dq=surfboard+fin+hydrofoil

and this: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD267666&id=AYg9AAAAEBAJ&dq=surfboard+fin

and: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD528166&id=-wx7AAAAEBAJ&dq=surfboard+fin&jtp=1)

greg

yep. i’m with you janklow. pretty interesting article. definitely lots of food for thought in that one.

Hey, this looks sorta like Roy’s tunnels, only patented

in 1983!

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD271318&id=PZ4-AAAAEBAJ&printsec=claims&zoom=4&dq=surfboard+fin#PPP1,M1

If a person MUST have a tunnel fin, this one looks to be FAR superior to what Roy is pimping. I’m surprised that the patent office granted the patent. I sent Chip an advertisment, and photo, from a 1963 surf mag for the Richard Deese tunnel fin. I hope he (Chip) will post it for all to see. The 1983 fin you posted info on is very similar to the Deese fin.

I see you in there too Dave! Cool stuff!

Happy Christmas everyone!

.

I don’t have the mag.

So let me ask you this, is the Jeff Ho feather flex fin mentioned ? or the Brewer and Hynson FU clear plastic jobs.

Thick based fins work very well in all conditions.Herb

I don’t have it either, but I don’t think those are in there. Mostly interviews with guys who talk about whatever they are into, or people and things that influenced them…

Geppy seems to like what you’re saying about thicker bases and fillets, with shorter fins.

Good article. Should be WAY more of that kind of thing in surf media, shouldn’t there? With so much possibility and variation in surfcraft, shouldn’t a bigger percentage of the surf media be about it?

Greg

:wink:

Quote:

If a person MUST have a tunnel fin, this one looks to be FAR superior to what Roy is pimping. .

Please don’t use you crass Americanism ( ‘pimping’ ) when referring to me, I find it highly offensive.

The tunnel in the patent is not superior, and I challenge you to say in what way it is. . . . .

Front up with a reason or shut the hell up

I built a coulpe of raked tunnels with conventional looking profiles just like that patended one back in 2001, and it was nowhere near as good, I could tell you why but you are obviously not interested in the truth and are just trolling to continue your petty hate vendetta. . … like I said, back up what you say or shut up.

.

Just pointing out that the self proclaimed king, has no clothes. Front up??? Sounds like crass Kiwi wanker talk to me. And no, I’ll not tell you why I think it is superior. I have no desire to reduce your level of floundering. You do it so well, you know. Read your own post for an example of pettyness, and hatred. Nice to know that I just make you Nuking Futs. Some insight might be gained by reading the patent you are violating. Pimping was the appropriate term, accurately applied. I also notice you’ve stopped PIMPING it as the Vort-X fin. Probably reminds too many people of the watery Vort-X when you flush a toilet. Ah yes, truth. I do like it. Too bad you are such a stranger to it. You would do well to embrace it. As to the IMAGINED vendetta, you’ll really know it, if it ever occurs. Hasn’t yet, so relax. Best way to avoid being exposed to offensive “crass Americanisms” would be to stay away from “crass American websites”, don’t you think?

LOL.

Geppy is a smart man.

The trend is thinner is better…In finbase that’s incorrect.At the speeds that we travel on surfies,a thick(1" thick) base travels thru the water more effectively and creates less drag.

This is actually something That Bill Thrailkill has worked with for many decades.Long before I could build a board. It’s also the basis for Rusty’s C-5 and my Superchargers.Herb

Quote:

And no, I’ll not tell you why I think it is superior.

That's because you can't !     I notice that you never say anything about hydrodynamics, you just make completely unsupported judgements       <div class="bb-quote">Quote:<blockquote class="bb-quote-body">

Some insight might be gained by reading the patent you are violating.

I am not violating any patent.

Quote:

I also notice you’ve stopped PIMPING it as the Vort-X fin.

It’s still called the Vort-X fin, check my site. .

Roy,

Thank you for the thoughtful, and insightful, comments. I’ll give them the appropriate consideration.

Between the hook-baiting, civil war, the old bull, and the cockfight, we could have a Hemingway story…

.

Greg

Bill…you’re a great guy and all, but “floundering” is a positive attribute…they do amazing things with their eyes, have total ocean bottom awareness, and are very tasty when breaded and fried…aloha

Quote:

Roy,

Thank you for the thoughtful, and insightful, comments. I’ll give them the appropriate consideration.

Thanks Bill, looks like a new era then !

All the best

Roy

Quote:

If a person MUST have a tunnel fin, this one looks to be FAR superior to what Roy is pimping. I’m surprised that the patent office granted the patent. I sent Chip an advertisment, and photo, from a 1963 surf mag for the Richard Deese tunnel fin. I hope he (Chip) will post it for all to see. The 1983 fin you posted info on is very similar to the Deese fin.

Note that the patent is a “Design” patent, not a “Utility” patent. A design patent is for a particular (often described as “decorative” or “ornamental”) design–not for a general concept–and is normally easier to get, and not as comprehensive in its protection for the inventor.

Note that the fin described in one of the references listed in this design patent bears a similarity to the turbo tunnel fin:

http://www.google.com/…nts?vid=USPATD343437

Quote:

……Some insight might be gained by reading the patent you are violating……

Roy is only violating the patent if: (1) he is selling an item matching the scope of the patented item in the countries in which the patent is valid and, (2) the term of the patent is still in effect. Condition 2 is not satisfied–the term has expired. Condition 1 may not have been met during the term of the patent.

Quote:
Quote:

Note that the patent is a “Design” patent, not a “Utility” patent. A design patent is for a particular (often described as “decorative” or “ornamental”) design–not for a general concept–and is normally easier to get, and not as comprehensive in its protection for the inventor.

Note that the fin described in one of the references listed in this design patent bears a similarity to the turbo tunnel fin:

http://www.google.com/…nts?vid=USPATD343437

That particular example is a design patent, however, Bolen patents: 6106346, issued 2000; 6379204, issued 2002; 6217402, issued 2001; 6767266, issued 2004 are all in (primary) USPTO class/subclass 441/79 (Buoys, Liferafts, and Aquatic Devices/Water Skimming or Walking Devices: having stabilizing surface), in other words, utility patents.

Re: the apparent duplication of existing art - there are limits to what can be researched. Unless the prior art is already subject to a patent or application, or is generally known, there is a good chance the usurping patent will be granted. Beyond that, in some cases the USPTO just does not do a good job of research. A few months ago I did some research on a device to use complimentary sound waves to cancel snoring noise (to be called “The Cone of Snoreless” :slight_smile: I found patents for two devices that do exactly the same thing as my idea, one issued in 1995, the other in 1997. Those devices functioned just about identically, but that function was described using different technical vocabularies; neither one cited the other, both were granted.

-Samiam

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

Note that the patent is a “Design” patent, not a “Utility” patent. A design patent is for a particular (often described as “decorative” or “ornamental”) design–not for a general concept–and is normally easier to get, and not as comprehensive in its protection for the inventor.

Note that the fin described in one of the references listed in this design patent bears a similarity to the turbo tunnel fin:

http://www.google.com/…nts?vid=USPATD343437

That particular example is a design patent, however, Bolen patents: 6106346, issued 2000; 6379204, issued 2002; 6217402, issued 2001; 6767266, issued 2004 are all in (primary) USPTO class/subclass 441/79 (Buoys, Liferafts, and Aquatic Devices/Water Skimming or Walking Devices: having stabilizing surface), in other words, utility patents.

Re: the apparent duplication of existing art - there are limits to what can be researched. Unless the prior art is already subject to a patent or application, or is generally known, there is a good chance the usurping patent will be granted. Beyond that, in some cases the USPTO just does not do a good job of research. A few months ago I did some research on a device to use complimentary sound waves to cancel snoring noise (to be called “The Cone of Snoreless” :slight_smile: I found patents for two devices that do exactly the same thing as my idea, one issued in 1995, the other in 1997. Those devices functioned just about identically, but that function was described using different technical vocabularies; neither one cited the other, both were granted.

-Samiam

Yes, the Bolen patents are utility patents, while the patent Blakestah referenced and the patent I referenced are design patents. This raises an interesting question since, according to the USPTO guidelines, a manufactured object may have both a design patent and a utility patent:


'The Difference Between Design and Utility Patents

In general terms, a “utility patent” protects the way an article is used and works (35 U.S.C. 101), while a “design patent” protects the way an article looks (35 U.S.C. 171). Both design and utility patents may be obtained on an article if invention resides both in its utility and ornamental appearance. While utility and design patents afford legally separate protection, the utility and ornamentality of an article are not easily separable. Articles of manufacture may possess both functional and ornamental characteristics."


That question is: If one inventor (e.g. Bolen) owns the utility patent (the functional component of the object), while a different person (e.g Hope) owns the design patent (the appearance or ornamental component of the object), can the owner of the utility patent manufacture and sell the object without obtaining a license from the owner of the design patent?

What may make it an even more interesting question is that I am told that “function” rates lower than “structure” in the assessment of prior art since it is easier to compare structural properties/characteristics than it is to compare functional characteristics/capabilities.

I agree with you that a there are some cases where the prior art is not well researched. In searching through surfing related patents, I am aware of instances in which the object of a utility patent appeared in a publication available to the general public, or in a presentation/announcement made to the public, or was sold to the general public, more than a year (and sometimes 20 years or more) before the application was submitted (and typically by a different person or party).

(PS: In regard to the noise-canceling invention, I think that in general it’s a little bit too much to expect an inventor who submits a patent application to reference an application that is submitted 2 years later :slight_smile: