PDA

View Full Version : Photo Patents - No Words



Pages : [1] 2 3

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 11:09 AM
The recent threads about patents and the "multigrade" thread got me thinking. How about a thread about patents. You just list the patent number, it's title or a short description, and maybe a couple words about why you found this patent interesting. And if possible, a link to it to make it easy to access.

Most important, let's not get side-tracked with discussions about the content of the patent or it's usefulness, let's just build up a repository of patents that others can use to research and learn about photography.

So no words - at least in the sense of a discussion. Just a simple listing of interesting patents.

Thanks!

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 11:13 AM
So here's the ones Ryuji listed in the multigrade thread, "Check out U.S. Patents 2,202,026 (Renwick), 2,280,300 (Potter et al), and, for your reference for the conceptual father of this technology, British Patent 15,054 of 1912 (Fischer)."

I haven't foud any links to these, but if you go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html you will find several patents that reference the ones above.

bjorke
04-26-2008, 11:14 AM
Exhibit A (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5443036.html)

Exhibit B (http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB111266108673297874-INjgYNolad4o5uoaXyGb6qGm5.html)

Ian Grant
04-26-2008, 11:26 AM
Photography patents are very interesting, sometimes what appears to have been left out - but you assume happens can make a huge difference.

I'll give you an example; Make a fairly standard B&W emulsion, spray it on a surface, expose a neg to the emulsion via an enlarger, process normally. Is that new, no say the Patent Office :)

But the process was granted a patent . . . . . Why ? Because the gelatin emulsion was not dried, it was only allowed to set, so used like a "Wet Plate" emulsion.

BTW I held the Patent :)

Ian

Photo Engineer
04-26-2008, 11:31 AM
I agree with Ian, and I can add that often your assumptions are wrong due to much of the patent material being on new ground. OTOH, the patent can be misleading by what is left out. It will work, but that is not the way it is done in manufacturing and it may take someone years to figure that out. After all, a patent need not disclose trade secrets.

PE

Ian Grant
04-26-2008, 11:53 AM
It's interesting reading older Patents, they are full of irrelevance. I read a lot a month or so ago and it was only hindsight that allowed me to realise the deliberate false tracks.

Ian

Photo Engineer
04-26-2008, 12:02 PM
I know that feeling Ian.

I have almost 2 boxes full of patents here at home that were sent to me about items of interest to my R&D work. Not one of them helped. Our own internal work was much more significant. I can mention the patents on organic bleaching agents for sliver and the Cupric salt bleaches. Neither worked at all as advertized and a whole group of us failed to get them to work beyond simple examples. In fact, I've mentioed BP 911,412 (IIRC) that seemed to have patented just about every Ferric EDTA blix in existance, but in fact was wide open and didn't work in some of the examples due to formation of insoluable Ferric and Ferrous salts in the coating, just as the Copper did from the Copper blix patents. The list is long and sad.

Of course, emulsion work is even more obfuscating.

PE

AgX
04-26-2008, 01:53 PM
I'm a bit reluctant to read patents at the moment. The last patents I read were rather recent ones seemingly on chromogenic films. I got NO idea beyond that what the authors were talking about, as if they had been written in a alien language...


Yes, I know the idea behind some patents applications and that keeps the fun off it.

Though, if you can present some really intriguing ones...

dwross
04-26-2008, 02:01 PM
So here's the ones Ryuji listed in the multigrade thread, "Check out U.S. Patents 2,202,026 (Renwick), 2,280,300 (Potter et al), and, for your reference for the conceptual father of this technology, British Patent 15,054 of 1912 (Fischer)."

I haven't foud any links to these, but if you go to http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html you will find several patents that reference the ones above.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=y3taAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=U.S.+Patent+2,202,026+(Renwick)+&source=web&ots=O9Kw2xl7B7&sig=9o4mnu5WTJZY3ALzEyG8PlKblg0&hl=en#PPA24,M1
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lExjAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=patent+2,280,300+(Potter+et+al)&source=web&ots=l_q4Oy-etV&sig=ggaL-QHVsqB6Qje30JDF-YSG5Dk&hl=en

Photo Engineer
04-26-2008, 03:08 PM
You might note that the Renwick patent uses 2 different emulsions of ordinary type, one pure Chloride and the other ChloroBromide.

In addition, he mentions use of a dye that is tightly adsorbed to the grain.

So, you see that you can mix halides and you do use strong dyes.

The second patent to Potter et. al. describes the use of sensitizing dyes that decrease contrast. It is well known that many dyes both spectrally sensitize and antifog (reducing contrast) at the same time.

Both of these patents have been used in one incarnation or another.

PE

AgX
04-26-2008, 04:38 PM
An agent that decreases fog would increase contrast. Wouldn't it?

Photo Engineer
04-26-2008, 04:59 PM
An agent that decreases fog would increase contrast. Wouldn't it?

Not always. It depends. Sometimes this has to be done via trial and error.

PE

Emulsion
04-26-2008, 05:13 PM
The free google patent site (http://www.google.com/patents) is SUPERB for researching US patents. What is the best method of viewing UK patents?

Emulsion.

Photo Engineer
04-26-2008, 05:44 PM
For those who took my workshops, try patent 2,614,929. It is one of the main patents on ISO washing. I ask you to consider if it resembles what we did in class. The big difference is that I used more Phthalated Gelatin to render the wash virtually foolproof for new students, but otherwise, what I did is close to the way we really did it and even though this patent works, it is not how it was carried out in practice as you will realize when you read the patent.

PE

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 07:04 PM
An agent that decreases fog would increase contrast. Wouldn't it?

PE, AgX, Ian - you guys are not following the intent of the thread. Do I need to get Ole to delete your off topic posts? :^)

Please refrain from making comments in this thread. If you have comments, and I'm sure you will, please start a separate thread.

Thanks -

PS - Ian, you can redeem yourself by posting the patent number for your process, as I actually think that people here might be interested in spraying emulsions.

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 07:16 PM
OK, PE, 2,614,929 was interesting.

Photo Engineer
04-26-2008, 07:17 PM
OK, PE, 2,614,929 was interesting.

How would you equate the patent with what we really did? I think this is germaine to this thread.

PE

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 07:30 PM
Here's a link to the Iso washing patent PE listed -
http://www.google.com/patents?id=wyJvAAAAEBAJ&dq=2,614,929

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 07:34 PM
http://www.google.com/patents?id=y3taAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=U.S.+Patent+2,202,026+(Renwick)+&source=web&ots=O9Kw2xl7B7&sig=9o4mnu5WTJZY3ALzEyG8PlKblg0&hl=en#PPA24,M1
http://www.google.com/patents?id=lExjAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=patent+2,280,300+(Potter+et+al)&source=web&ots=l_q4Oy-etV&sig=ggaL-QHVsqB6Qje30JDF-YSG5Dk&hl=en

Denise - thanks. Like they say in the Linux forums, "Google is your friend".

Kirk Keyes
04-26-2008, 07:40 PM
How would you equate the patent with what we really did? I think this is germaine to this thread.

Must... not... debate... practice vs. patents here. (That was my best Shatner imitation there.) Let's start another thread then. Actually, I think that was done a week or so ago.

But if you want to take this one and discuss the patent vs. the practice of this specific practice, I'm all for that.