Hi AR:
I have not done this for a couple of reasons. Innate indolence is at the top of the
list, but making an attempt to do this early on - now many years ago - I realized that it
wasn't that easy to do thoroughly.
Of course, it's possible to classify many, possibly 2/3, of the patents pretty easily,
but not so easy for many others. For example, where would you put a patent such as
5,934,343 [Method for dispensing of powders]? The obvious choice is that it belongs in the
3DP column, but that's biased because I’m familiar with the company and what they’re
doing. Isn't this also applicable under at least some circumstances to SLS or any other RP
technology that's based on powders? Probably. And so it goes with many of the patents.
There are also numerous patents that pretty much stand by themselves and are
unclassifiable, or that have obvious overlap. When I realized this, it was all the excuse
I needed to not do the work. Boy - was I relieved.
This actually reflects some of the reasoning behind the construction of the US patent
classification system, and I've learned there's more wisdom to it than I thought there was
when I first encountered it. By grouping together like machine elements and processes, one
arrives at a vocabulary of mechanical solutions that can be applied to disparate and
completely unrelated end-uses.
I would guess that what you're after, however, is a rough estimate of the size of the
defensive walls surrounding the major technologies: I would divide the pile up among
several students, have them squint their eyes so they can only focus on the big picture,
and place each patent into the most obvious technology column. The result would be of
interest and value and I'd certainly like to quote you folks in the WWGRP.
I’m certainly not going to do the work.
Have fun!
Ed
Ed Grenda
Castle Island Co.
