CareFusion Corporation - Assaulting a ‘Scientific Breakthrough’ US Pat. 9,067,036 June 30, 2015, US Pat. 9,205,220 December 8, 2015 – reinvention with serious scientific flaws by lay people colluding with USPTO
Illumina - What kind of reliable company would do such a mess ignoring the Law, Ethics, IP rights, and science?
Why is Harvard University cheating Hydrology and colluding with USPTO conspiracy?
The same invention was filed and issued twice by the same Patent Examiner:
9,121,306 - Slippery surfaces with high pressure stability, optical transparency, and self-healing characteristics:
Primary Examiner: Ewald; Maria Veronica - Assistant Examiner: Auer; Laura
9,121,307 - Slippery surfaces with high pressure stability, optical transparency, and self-healing characteristics:
Primary Examiner: Ewald; Maria Veronica - Assistant Examiner: Johnson; Nancy
Does it mean that the same thing can be invented twice by the same inventor?
Did the inventor cite herself in the other patent as reference about the present status in the art?
Did the Examiner find that a similar invention was also filed and approved by herself?
What would happen if the same reinvention had different inventors and/or different dates?
Is it possible to reinvent the same thing varying inventors and/or dates?
Is it a new Theory of Knowledge that we can reach invention^n on many folding dimensions of creation?
I am a scientist, but did I miss anything during my PhD regarding Philosophy of Science?
‘It was double charged, double paid, and who knows, double invented . . . . most probably double cheated!’
Why is Stanford University cheating Hydrology?
Power vs. Knowledge
Henry Darcy in 1856 proposed the Darcy’s Law for Hydraulic Conductivity on porosity addressing fluid flow through a cross sectional area by time (volume/area/time) as ‘the velocity of the flow is proportional to the hydraulic gradient’. Afterwards in 1907 Edgard Buckingham suggested a change in the equation to address Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow, as the negative pressure upward against gravity (Soil Physics, Jury et al., 1991, John Wiley). It has been observed that many inventors and scientists employing the terminology ‘wick/wicking’ neither understand the functioning of oil lamps nor Hydrogeology in their libraries, concerning the functioning of Hydraulic Zones. They come up with scientific flaws as wicks only have negative hydraulic flow (unsaturated). Wick is a porous flexible structure resistant to fire that moves fuel toward a flame (Unsaturated Hydraulic Flow) in order to comply with its Etymology it must also resist to high temperatures of flames. It becomes a very basic Etymological flaw to call something as a wick that fails as wick on oil lamps. Then, it is impossible to contrive a wick that cannot perform as a wick. Even more, wicks could never be used as a draining porosity under saturated conditions which is not that easily handled by lay people missing deep comprehension on Hydraulic Zones interplay. After all, wicks never worked in the bottom of oil lamps and it was initially meant to constantly supply fluid under demand to a flame with a very clear hydraulic functioning.
It is a blatant mistake by any faculty handling ‘microfluidic devices’ ignoring the science of fluids – Hydrology and the Law.
Comprehension of American Academic Values
On a pursue of a ‘scientific breakthrough’ I bumped to a huge technical and scientific gap lasting more than a century also associated to an ongoing sort of conspiracy in the patenting system regarding intellectual property affairs as a blatant reinvention scheme is taking place sometimes with flawed patents. USPTO deliberately assigs lay Examiners to judge issues they are not know in the art in combination with outrageous multiple applications of the same invention as it were possible to invent the same thing over and over. The distortion is so evident that in the cover up USPTO does not disclose the technical background of Patent Examiners to assure that they are judging issues within their skill boundaries. Patent Examiners are judging issues and hiding their technical expertise. On their intellectual acumen scientists are engaged with disclosing Nature principles making them also very sensitive to perceive coherence on human affairs since we are part of Nature as well. Scientists learn about Theory of Knowledge and Metaphysics of existence just to know what can be known.
Academic Pillage on Hydrology Science
Indeed I cannot receive any Nobel Prize Award. Mr. Alfred Nobel also was blessed by nature in his lab as it exploded in Sweden when he was developing the Chemistry of explosives coined as the father of Dynamite. He became famous and wealthy helping governments making more efficient wars decimating millions of humans with more efficient explosives. He neither got married nor left any offspring to keep his DNA on human genetic pool. It seems that in the deep underlying principles there is nothing noble but depressing to noble prizes that mismatch with hummingbirds.
Illumina - What kind of reliable company would do such a mess ignoring the Law, Ethics, IP rights, and science?
Hydrology Breakthrough vs. USPTO Conspiracy and Brainwashing
‘... If you have a point to make about my treatment of hydrological concepts, I ask that you take the time to explain your specific points of disagreement. I note that my work is better represented in my publications (available at http://www.stroockgroup.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment