Originally posted by GregG:
""7. A method of forming an aircraft control mechanism comprising the steps of: forming an aircraft lift surface having first and second spaced flexible walls and a leading edge and a trailing edge; interposing a plurality of spaced longitudinal web structures between said spaced flexible walls to provide rigidity to the aircraft lift surface; and severing one of said walls between two of the spaced longitudinal web structures such that a lift surface and a control surface are formed with the nonsevered one of said walls forming a flexible hinge therebetween to allow arcuate movement of said control surface with respect to said lift surface.
8. A method as in claim 7 further comprising the steps of: forming an aircraft wing with said lift surface; and forming an aircraft aileron with said control surface when said one of said walls is severed.
Of course this would take a court case to absolutely define what these words mean, but -
#7 says- 7. >>>A method of forming an aircraft control mechanism <<< comprising the steps of: "
then defines the invention by defining a flight surface, the control surface and the hinge. - i.e. in general how the hinge is to be integrated with the plane.
#8 just extends this specifically to an aileron
remember the purpose of a patent is to share/protect inventions by providing a specific method for implementing the invention, - to be valid, other people who read it need to be able to demonstrate the invention for themselves. You can't just say - here is my patent for a hinge -- , you have to set up the whole thing, the wing, the control surface, so those who follow can build enough of the overall device to demonstrate the novel/patented part.
is it novel ???? (certainly debatable) the pat office said so, if you care to prove otherwise, the patent would be invalid.
Sorry, greedy not evil? I think there is a fair overlap in those terms - I still don't see how a company or person trying to protect their intellectual property is greedy