THE MOTHER OF ALL SEARCHES

[antoniosz]

Based on international patent classification here is a list of links that shows most patent classes related to FPs, pencils, combos and BPs. If my calculations are correct there are more than 9984 patents issued worldwide listed there.

Some of these links lead to more than 500 patents. The web site will not list more than 500 if the result is more than that. For example class B43K5 bring back 9308 patents - of which only the first 500 are displayed. To find out how to display all of them scroll to the bottom of this message.

 

Please note that the web site is down everyday from 23:00 to 23:15 EST for maintainance.

 

B43K1 Nibs (continuously adjustable nibs B43K17/00); Writing-points (for indicating or recording apparatus G01D15/16)

B43K3 Nib holders (holders for continuously adjustable nibs B43K17/00)

B43K5 Pens with ink reservoirs in holders, e.g. fountain-pens (nibs or writing-points with ink reservoirs B43K1/01; ball-point pens B43K7/00; pens with writing-points other than nibs or balls B43K8/00; multiple-point writing implements B43K27/00)

B43K7 Ball-point pens ([N: B43M11/08B takes precedence]; multiple-point writing implements B43K27/00) [C9609]

B43K8 Pens with writing-points other than nibs or balls (brushes with reservoir for supplying substances A46B11/00)

B43K11 Filling devices (ink receptacles B43L25/00)

B43K13 Devices for removing nibs; Devices for cleaning nibs, e.g. by wiping (ink receptacles with pen-wiping means B43L25/12)

B43K15 Assembling, finishing, or repairing pens

B43K17 Continuously-adjustable nibs, e.g. for drawing-pens; Holders therefor (features common to fountain pens B43K5/00)

B43K19 Non-propelling pencils; Styles; Crayons; Chalks (batik pencils, cord-line chalkers B44D3/00; writing-core compositions for pencils, crayon compositions, chalk compositions C09D13/00)

B43K21 Propelling pencils (projecting mechanisms for writing units B43K24/00; multiple-point writing implements B43K27/00)

B43K23 Holders or connectors for writing implements; Means for protecting the writing-points [N: (B43K27/00A takes precedence)] [C9411]

B43K24 Mechanisms for selecting, projecting, retracting or locking writing units

B43K25 Attaching writing implements to wearing apparel or objects involving constructional changes of the implements (protecting means, e.g. caps B43K23/08; garment-holding devices A44B21/00; fastening articles to wearing apparel A45F5/02)

B43K27 Multiple-point writing implements, e.g. multicolour; Combinations of writing implements (B43K29/00 takes precedence; mechanisms for selecting, projecting, retracting or locking writing units B43K24/00; multiple writing devices with pantographic linkages B43L13/12)

B43K29 Combinations of writing implements with other articles

B43K31 Writing implement receptacles functioning as, or combined with, writing implements (other writing implement receptacles A45C11/34, A45C11/36)

 

 

If there are more than 500 patents in a search you can break it down by year. For example:

 

http://v3.espacenet.com/results?sf=a&FIRST...=&EC=&IC=+B43K5

 

Gives all the B43K5 patents during 1920. The following list of links leads to every patent in the B43K5 from 1920 to 2006. These searches can be easily generalized.

 

B43K5 patents during 1920

B43K5 patents during 1921

B43K5 patents during 1922

B43K5 patents during 1923

B43K5 patents during 1924

B43K5 patents during 1925

B43K5 patents during 1926

B43K5 patents during 1927

B43K5 patents during 1928

B43K5 patents during 1929

B43K5 patents during 1930

B43K5 patents during 1931

B43K5 patents during 1932

B43K5 patents during 1933

B43K5 patents during 1934

B43K5 patents during 1935

B43K5 patents during 1936

B43K5 patents during 1937

B43K5 patents during 1938

B43K5 patents during 1939

B43K5 patents during 1940

B43K5 patents during 1941

B43K5 patents during 1942

B43K5 patents during 1943

B43K5 patents during 1944

B43K5 patents during 1945

B43K5 patents during 1946

B43K5 patents during 1947

B43K5 patents during 1948

B43K5 patents during 1949

B43K5 patents during 1950

B43K5 patents during 1951

B43K5 patents during 1952

B43K5 patents during 1953

B43K5 patents during 1954

B43K5 patents during 1955

B43K5 patents during 1956

B43K5 patents during 1957

B43K5 patents during 1958

B43K5 patents during 1959

B43K5 patents during 1960

B43K5 patents during 1961

B43K5 patents during 1962

B43K5 patents during 1963

B43K5 patents during 1964

B43K5 patents during 1965

B43K5 patents during 1966

B43K5 patents during 1967

B43K5 patents during 1968

B43K5 patents during 1969

B43K5 patents during 1970

B43K5 patents during 1971

B43K5 patents during 1972

B43K5 patents during 1973

B43K5 patents during 1974

B43K5 patents during 1975

B43K5 patents during 1976

B43K5 patents during 1977

B43K5 patents during 1978

B43K5 patents during 1979

B43K5 patents during 1980

B43K5 patents during 1981

B43K5 patents during 1982

B43K5 patents during 1983

B43K5 patents during 1984

B43K5 patents during 1985

B43K5 patents during 1986

B43K5 patents during 1987

B43K5 patents during 1988

B43K5 patents during 1989

B43K5 patents during 1990

B43K5 patents during 1991

B43K5 patents during 1992

B43K5 patents during 1993

B43K5 patents during 1994

B43K5 patents during 1995

B43K5 patents during 1996

B43K5 patents during 1997

B43K5 patents during 1998

B43K5 patents during 1999

B43K5 patents during 2000

B43K5 patents during 2001

B43K5 patents during 2002

B43K5 patents during 2003

B43K5 patents during 2004

B43K5 patents during 2005

B43K5 patents during 2006

Edited June 1, 2006 by antoniosz

[Elaine]

Wow Antoniois! That is an amazing database. I may get in trouble with the Pen History mods or fellow admins, but this list just got fast-tracked to being pinned.

[Guest Denis Richard]

An amazing reference you just posted here Antonios. I can hardly believe you are not requiring a password and/or a mortgage on our souls for it.

 

Thanks for posting it.

 

Denis.

[Johnny Appleseed]

These posts of patent information are an excellent source of information on Fountain Pen Patents and fountain pen history, and I am extremely greatful to Antonios for posting these.

 

I did want to make mention of another source of Patent information that provides a complement to the information posted here. That is the Lion and Pen Patent Database.

 

The Lion and Pen database is a database of more than 1616 patents related to pens and writing instruments, with cross-references and a summary for each patent. It allows key-word searches for things such as "blow-filler" which are difficult to do in the European Patent Office database. In addition, the European Patent Office database only seems to have British Patents prior to 1920, and misses most of the early years of pen making.

 

The Lion and Pen Database is, somewhat unfortunately, restricted to registered users of Lion and Pen who have made more than 5 substantial posts. Personally I would have liked to see more open access to it, but it is the intellectual property of the designers - Rob Astyk and Olle Hjort - and I guess they have the right to put the restrictions on it they choose. At least they aren't charging for access.

 

That said, I have found the patent database very useful, allowing me to, in the last two days, find out that a stray cap in a parts lot I bought belonged to a Moore Safety pen, and confirm that a non-name metal pen I have is probably made by DeWitt and Lefrance between 1922 and 1924.

 

To begin the process of getting access to the Lion and Pen database:Lion and Pen Patent Database Access

 

John

Edited June 19, 2006 by Johnny Appleseed

[antoniosz]

John, there is no doubt that finding the patents does not mean much by itself. It is the content and their interconnections that make the true story. For this reason the more people interested on this subject the better.

 

Incidentally there is another, older source of information for pen patents.

 

The "Guide to Pen & Pencil Patents 1833-1950 (CD)"

By Michael S Kidd, Publishing Year: 2003 (self-published by the author).

 

This CD (and book?) is mentioned in http://www.booksaboutpens.com/catalog_en/i...tegory=&id=2596), and it is often quoted by George Kovalenco in his postings. If there is anyone that can point us to where this CD can be obtained please let us know.

Edited June 20, 2006 by antoniosz

[parkercrazy]

Thank you Antoniois,

 

For the many hours of work you must have put in to bring us this fantastic patent list.

I was able to locate 7 patents by my father when he worked for Parker. This is information I had no idea existed and gives me a better understanding of what my fathers work was and a side of him I did not know.

I for one will always appreciate this contribution.

 

Thanks Again, Francis

[kirchh]

From what I have seen, the Kidd CD/Book is riddled with errors, and is fairly brief in it's depth of information. A step in the right direction, but lacks the proper execution.

Rick -

 

I don't think I would agree with your characterization. The Kidd compilation is far from perfect; one does run across the odd error now and then, but it is inaccurate to claim that it is 'riddled with errors'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'brief in its depth of information'; if you mean that it doesn't cover many makers, or that it doesn't have many patents, I would disagree; there are 3,939 patents, it runs from 1833 to 1950, it includes trademarks, and there are 215 makers included, by my count.

 

Indeed not perfect (lack of a usable electronic version is a major flaw), but I don't think worthy of the extent of your criticism.

 

--Daniel

[Starry Night]

removed

Edited June 26, 2006 by Starry Night

[kirchh]

From what I have seen, the Kidd CD/Book is riddled with errors, and is fairly brief in it's depth of information. A step in the right direction, but lacks the proper execution.

Rick -

 

I don't think I would agree with your characterization. The Kidd compilation is far from perfect; one does run across the odd error now and then, but it is inaccurate to claim that it is 'riddled with errors'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'brief in its depth of information'; if you mean that it doesn't cover many makers, or that it doesn't have many patents, I would disagree; there are 3,939 patents, it runs from 1833 to 1950, it includes trademarks, and there are 215 makers included, by my count.

 

Indeed not perfect (lack of a usable electronic version is a major flaw), but I don't think worthy of the extent of your criticism.

 

--Daniel

anyway, for what it's worth,

 

If you look up "riddled", it does not mean that there are X amount of anything, it just means that they are "spread throughout". Riddled by definition, does not attach a set amount to anything.

You are in error. A more careful reading of the definitions of 'riddled' will reveal that it does not 'just mean spread throughout'. Rather, particularly in the definition applicable to discrete items (errors, holes, etc.), it specifically means containing 'many' or 'numerous' such items.

 

"riddled

 

adj 1: (often followed by `with') damaged throughout by numerous perforations or holes; 'a sweater riddled with moth holes'; 'cliffs riddled with caves'; 'the bullet-riddled target'"

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

 

 

"riddle:

To pierce with numerous holes; perforate: riddle a target with bullets."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

 

The word derives from a word meaning sieve -- a device containing numerous holes.

 

Now, if you used the word erroneously, and you merely meant, as you write, that the Kidd work has "occassional errors" and that it is "not 100% accurate", I agree completely; by your usage, of course, every pen reference extant is "riddled with errors".

 

But the important point is that your lastest post clarifies that you did not mean to imply that the Kidd work has numerous errors or "tons of mistakes", just that it is "not 100% accurate". So we may disagree on the definition of a word, but not on the essence of the point, which is that the Kidd work has occasional errors, but not tons of mistakes.

 

I cannot argue that it is an important work.... As far as Kidd's Patent CD and book, manual, I recommend anyone that is interested in pen history and research to get a copy

 

I agree. It's important and extremely useful.

 

Just because the Patent CD has <4000 patents, doesn't necessarily make it better, figure the USPTO has millions of patents, does that make it the best source for pen patent information?

 

But the patents in the Kidd reference are all writing instrument patents, so the comparison fails.

 

the USPTO has millions of patents, does that make it the best source for pen patent information? no, because it is just a database of patents, in order, by issue number, without any way to disseminate the information

 

The USPTO has a way to disseminate the information -- it's available on the World Wide Web at USPTO Patent Search.

 

anyone can list 2 or 3 thousand patents.

 

Yet Kidd is, so far, the only one to have listed over 3,900 writing instrument patents.

 

My thoughts would be for you to read the post, understand it, and perhaps spend more time trying to figure out what the poster means before replying, or trying to disagree.

 

Very important, but it is difficult to discern a poster's meaning if words have been mis-used, as is evident here.

 

(keep thinking I am "rick" good for you....)

 

Well, it was obvious you wanted your identity to be known, so I can't take too much credit

 

--Daniel

[Starry Night]

removed

Edited June 26, 2006 by Starry Night

[kirchh]

I'm not sure what exactly you're going on about, Rick. You say, of the Kidd compilation, "what good is it?", but you also say it is "an important research tool." I guess you answered your own question there!

 

We agree it's a valuable resource, and we agree that it's not 100% accurate. The definition of 'riddled' is relatively unimportant, seeing as how by your usage every pen reference is riddled with errors, so better to attempt a less ambiguous characterization, which you have now done.

 

I'm still puzzled by your assertion that the USPTO has no way to disseminate patents; they disseminate them on the WWW. This might be another case of linguistic confusion, though, about the meaning of 'disseminate', so best to just leave that matter be, I suppose.

 

Also, I explained my "depth" theory, and how it relates to what a GOOD patent resource should be. Not that there is anything wrong with having a list of patents that apply to pens, but not being able to figure out how it all fits together, is much the same as having all the letters of the theory of relativity, and not being able to sequence them in the proper order. What good is it really? What depth does Kidd offer. Maybe you got depth and quantity confused, Daniel.

 

Not at all; I didn't characterize depth. In fact, I clearly stated that I was unsure what you meant by that term:

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'brief in its depth of information'

 

I think you've read far too much into my post. I merely disagreed with your characterization of Kidd's work as being 'riddled with errors', and I stated that if by 'brief in its depth' you meant that it doesn't cover many makers, or that it doesn't have many patents, I would disagree. I'm not sure why my opinion of Kidd's work prompted such extended replies; you could simply have said, "by 'riddled' I meant it wasn't 100% accurate, and by 'depth' I meant delving into the meaning of, and the relationships among, the patents." No big deal.

 

Cool signature image, by the way

 

--Daniel

[Starry Night]

removed

Edited June 26, 2006 by Starry Night

[Titivillus]

glad you like something about my post!

Great discussion on information sources but I think that this would be improved by possibly some quotes from the book showing either the high points or the errors that are there.

 

Granted this would need to be done using the proper referencing form since there is nothing I hate more than seeing something that I know for a fact is a direct quote from a book or other site.

 

As it seems that the history of pens is where this happens ( because of the need for using referenced materials) most maybe if anyone sees something that is a quote from a book or another site to tell the admins so that proper referencing can be done

 

 

Actually having a private email posted publically is something I hate more than improper references but there's no real way to deal with that one.

 

 

great thread!

 

K

Edited June 25, 2006 by Tytyvyllus

[Johnny Appleseed]

Welcome Starry! Glad to see you over here. The vintage pen information over here is much thinner then some other sites, but the conversation is generally more cordial.

 

To comment, when I read:

From what I have seen, the Kidd CD/Book is riddled with errors, and is fairly brief in it's depth of information.

 

I interpret that as being that the information has so many errors as to render it useless - very different from your later statements about its value and flaws.

 

The L&P patent database is a tremendous resource, it should not be denied. They have done a great deal of work to make an incredibly useful tool for researching old pen patents.

 

Antonios lists are also an incredible resource, despite the fact that they do not have the context and cross-reference information of the L&P database, and it is limited in the time frame for American patents.

 

What Antonios posts do, however, is open up a whole new world of patent research that anyone out here can do themselves. To paraphrase an old and overused cliche - the L&P database has some great fish, but pointing the way to the European Patent database is teaching us to fish ourselves. I probably would not have found my way to the Euro patent database without his posts (even though I know there were links at L&P, but the discussion there made it all seem so arcane and inscrutible).

 

Granted this would need to be done using the proper referencing form since there is nothing I hate more than seeing something that I know for a fact is a direct quote from a book or other site.

 

As it seems that the history of pens is where this happens (because of the need for using referenced materials) most maybe if anyone sees something that is a quote from a book or another site to tell the admins so that proper referencing can be done

 

Point is well taken and we need to be better about this. The quick-and-dirty nature of posts to a forum like this tends to lead to things not being attributed in the way we would when, say, writing a research paper. This is especially true when briefly answering someone's question.

 

I wonder though what the standard form of reference should be. Is a link sufficient? Do we need to use proper MLA reference form whenever we draw from another source? Or is journalistic style more appropriate (where the references is made part of the text, not a seperate citation)? When is it appropriate to use and image? I would think it inappropriate to copy an image from someones website or hot-link it without permission or credit, but what about a link to another website? Is there a standard for citation in informal online forums?

 

John

[kirchh]

I'm not sure what exactly you're going on about, Rick. You say, of the Kidd compilation, "what good is it?", but you also say it is "an important research tool." I guess you answered your own question there!

 

--Daniel

Well, here we go again....

 

where do I say of the Kidd CD "what good is it?"

 

I don't, you're wrong....

 

Right here:

 

My whole point was that indeed anyone can find 3000 or 4000 patents, list them all, but what good is it, if all they do is list them, or don't take the time to put the entire story together, or offer up what the importance of the items are.

 

As far as "riddled" being unimportant, you sure spent a lot of time on that one last time, how come it all of the sudden became unimportant????

 

Once it became apparent that we wouldn't agree on the connotation of the word, but that we agreed that what you meant was just that the Kidd compilation wasn't 100% accurate.

 

Funny, in terms of saying how someone read too much into a post, I had a statement of maybe 20 words, and you pick it apart, piece by piece.... what extent did I go?

 

Um...my response to your statement was four sentences - just 120 words. Quite terse. Your rejoinder was...let's see...1,116 words. Hey, you asked...

 

why do you insist on calling me "rick"?

 

who is rick?

 

Rick Krantz. You're Rick Krantz, aren't you?

 

--Daniel

[Guest Denis Richard]

Quantity is good when, I go to a buffet, but to some degree you expect quality and depth as well. (meaning, I like more than three choices of meat, and the food should have flavor, and not be half hazardly prepared, for example....)

 

Quality is what I expect in my pen patent search. I want one stop shopping for my patents, the abiltity to see similar filling mechanisms, or even have the ability to look up who, was doing what, for who, in the industry.

So, you expect the research to be done and pre-digested already. It's your prerogative; You have the right to rely entirely on second-hand information.

 

If I may continue your analogy, there is difference between a restaurant and a market : whatever the quality, the former offers you processed food, while the later gives you access to the base ingredients. Stepping into a produce market and grumbling that you will have to cook before you eat is a behavior that can be called odd at best.

 

You may consider that Antonios has organized the warehouse of patents into a neater shelved market. Restaurants can be good too, but only as good as the Chef. Unfortunately, many "Celebrity Chef" in the pen world are simple cooks, storytellers self-promoted to the rank of Historian.

 

Were I to be interested in that sort of cuisine, I would like to have the practical tools to cook myself. But as I am not as much interested by the history of things as I am by the story of people, I'll go on chatting about such inconsequential things as what makes people's heart beat faster rather than louder, or what humbles them, rather than makes them pursue onanistic ego trips.

 

Denis.

[kirchh]

why do you insist on calling me "rick"?

 

who is rick?

 

Rick Krantz. You're Rick Krantz, aren't you?

 

--Daniel

 

Hey, what happened? You deleted all your posts!

 

To paraphrase something you wrote recently, a question, why would you register under an alias for your name? Just seems to be a way to be misleading.... that's what I see....

 

I did notice that you said, regarding the dust up about Tech ads and your images, "If FPN decides to not respond, I might look into other avenues as to what I can do." I hope your recent activities here under an alias aren't part of some kooky Spy vs. Spy thing...

 

Anyway, I leave you with the words of Rob Astyk:

 

there's the old adage that you can't cheat an honest man. The corollary to that is that an honest man doesn't need to go skulking about, trying to break in though an unlocked basement window. He walks up to the door, introduces himself and asks if he can come in and talk. That's how an honest person behaves.

 

Consider coming back as yourself and talking about cool pen stuff.

 

--Daniel

[antoniosz]

OK, the mother of all searches is no more the most powerful tool.

Google patent search (as Chris has posted today) is available.

Try the advanced one. It is awesome:

 

advanced patent search.

 

The big advantage of this over EPO is that it can get you pre 1920 information.

For example:

 

these are all patents from 1900 to 1920 with the words "fountain pen" in them.

 

This makes some earlier work that I did obsolete, as this summer I was trying to collect all patents from 1910 to 1919. That's OK - it was fun

Edited December 14, 2006 by antoniosz

[Andy]

OK, the mother of all searches is no more the most powerful tool.

Google patent search (as Chris has posted today) is available.

Try the advanced one. It is awesome:

 

advanced patent search.

 

The big advantage of this over EPO is that it can get you pre 1920 information.

For example:

 

these are all patents from 1900 to 1920 with the words "fountain pen" in them.

 

This makes some earlier work that I did obsolete, as this summer I was trying to collect all patents from 1910 to 1919. That's OK - it was fun 

I've been meaning to have a look-see that this since reading about it on PT the other day- earliest hit for the search string "fountain pen" is actually Samuel Morse's patent for the Telegraph!

 

The first patent in the Google search tool dealing specifically with fountain pens is from September 11, 1847- Kinda Neat.

 

September of 1848 gives us a patent with a sac (well, a bulb anyway).

 

Neat stuff.

 

Andy

[antoniosz]

Andy for a more organized presentation of the early patents see:

https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/in...showtopic=11388