[Leica] Lens Designs

[Robert Rose <rjr@usip.com>]

I want to congratulate Marc for an excellent, very knowledgeable and interesting history on lens design.  I do want to add my two cents on patent law, however.

It is not always necessary to copy specific dimensions to infringe a patent, sometimes making an equivalent device will infringe, although it is not literal infringement.  Patents of enormous scope are granted every day, so I am not sure what you mean by a broad approach.  Any new or useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter might qualify for a patent.

For example, there is a patent on a method for inserting a flexible lens into an eye by folding.  If you are a doctor and you fold a lens to insert it into a relatively small incision in an eye, you have probably infringed that patent.  See what I mean?  Also, using your example, if the method you found for coating a lens is the only one that works, then your patent might in fact preclude anyone else from coating a lens for the life of the patent (now 20 years), even though you are correct that the idea of coating a lens is not protected.

We must also be very careful when using the word "design" in relation to patents, since a design patent is something more akin to a trademark, and in no way protects the utility or function of the device.  For example, Leica was granted a "design patent" on the design of the R8, see

http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?pn=USD0384965__&language=en

but this "design patent" only protects the features of the R8 camera that are not functional and are purely ornamental.  In other words, a "design patent" is just the opposite of what you would think.

Also, independent development is not relevant for infringement; in fact the beauty of a patent is that it will prohibit sale of an infringing device even if it is independently developed.  That is why it is very important to obtain "right to manufacture" opinions from a patent law firm to be sure that your new device does not infringe some unknown patent.  The only time independent development is in issue is when there is an interference proceeding before the patent office to determine who first reduced an invention to practice (sort of like dueling inventions).

It is very interesting to look at Leica's new and existing patents at 
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com
Search for  Leica Camera in U.S. Inventors & Companies and look at the results:

US05845163  12/01/1998 
Device for securing the image position for multiple exposure of film  
US05630254  05/20/1997 
Suspension lug and locking element for a carrying strap
US05453875   09/26/1995 
Monocular telescope having a focusing unit whose mechanical 
sensitivity can be varied
US05388006    02/07/1995 
Telephoto camera lens
US05321555   06/14/1994 
Compact photographic objective of the triplet type having 
improved chromatic and monochromatic characteristics
US05161060   11/03/1992 
Camera lens
US05126881   06/30/1992 
Lens hood for a photographic lens


Take a look at the 1992 '060 patent, which appears to be a patent on the 35mm Summilux-M.  The first claim is:
   1. A camera lens having a relative aperture of 1:1.4 and a focal
length of 35 mm, said camera lens comprising: 
(a) a first component having a cemented element which is                          concave on an object side; 
(b) a second component having a cemented element which
includes an aspherical convex surface on said object side; 
(c) a diaphragm; 
(d) a third component serving as an individual lens; 
(e) a fourth component having a cemented element which is
concave on said object side; and 
(f) a fifth component having a cemented element which
includes a concave surface on an image side and having an
aspherical convex surface on said object side.

See, that is very broad with no "specifics" as to size, etc.

The other patents listed are just design patents, not utility patents.  This is not a very good showing, frankly, compared to Leica's science divisions (just search on Leica) and may show where their R&D is being invested.

So, once again, thank you Marc for a very informative history, and forgive me if I have gone on too long on patent issues.  I hope everyone finds the IBM site interesting.

Robert Rose
=================

Marc James Small wrote: 


<<Again, and again:  a BROAD approach cannot be patented.  A specific design
CAN be patented.  What the Japanese took were SPECIFIC designs, not broad
approaches.  That is, they took the actual physical dimensions, materials,
and so forth, to produce their gear.>>


<<A similar process was independently developed immediately thereafter by
Kodak and Wollensak, and Zeiss never once considered suing, as these were
independent developments, not thefts.  Again, the PRINCIPLE that lens
coatings reduce flare cannot be patented:  the MANNER in which the coating
is applied, and the chemical composition of the coating, can be.>>