Joe (Jafreeman), thank you for the witty and gracious response. I hope my suggestion proves to be helpful.
Jay23, since your last three responses to my posts have been largely devoid of anything substantive, I have little in the way of further comments. However, as best as I can surmise the key to what you may not be realizing could be reflected in your statement a few posts ago that:
A patent need not discuss every usage and effect.
A patent has no applicability to, and provides no protection against, uses and applications of something that is covered by the patent that do not fall within the scope of its claims. To conjure up a hypothetical example, if someone patents an additive to the rubber that is used in automobile tires, and the stated claims apply only to that usage, and someone else subsequently discovers that the same substance is useful as an additive to carpenter’s putty, that someone else is free to market the substance for that purpose. In fact he is even free to patent its use for that purpose, assuming usage for that purpose meets the requirements any patent must meet (i.e., its usage for that purpose must be new, useful, and non-obvious to someone reasonably skilled in the particular art).
That kind of situation, involving patents for new applications of previously patented substances or methods, occurs very commonly.
Similarly, use of Mr. Denney’s patented acoustic paint for purposes that do not fall within the scope of the claims in the patent, such as for treating fuses, is not protected by that patent, and that patent has no relevance to such usage.
Regards,
-- Al