John B wrote:
The Buster looks similar, however the use of pulleys at the kite would make it loose or very tippy, and even more so with higher attachment points.
We do not use pulley's, but use resistance with higher points on the LE. There are key components to make the system work.
Sloped "wide wingtips" keep the system locked down while riding with min. input. When you need to tip the kite it's there not loose but tight. The static lines also provide rigidity to the LE. in the closed posistion. The "CC" pulley bar provides the resistance and keeps the system tight.
If you did file a PCT in the summer of 02, that gives you a year "03" to form your patent. Please help me out here, where is the #.... I searched..
Even if the Buster looks similar to Windwing's SAFE system from a technical point of views the conbinations of details and refinements,
makes it to work in reality in a different way. I call this method the "Kinematic Inversion of Recon".
Than it's patentable because technically, functionally different and improved,
so as the claims will be different, inspite of the fact of presence of the prior art.
PCT is the catch.
It can be extended for more than 2 years for business purposes or etc. for prior art advantages,
without disclosing the abstract or issue the patent.
This way nobody would have a clue and would give the extra edge to the inventor against competitors,
like looking for a black cat in the dark.
It's not really the patent what is important but how to market it and how to protect it.
Appears to be there are many ways to skin the cat,
but the line load transfer of Windwing's works slightly in a different way which makes the foundation strong IMO.
Thank you John and Ken for the details,
Flown Arc type, Foil type and L.E.I. kites and found neither one are perfect as people;
But each one has it's good point of applications. Also flown Recon, 5th line, 5th E. and Aventout systems.