A few days ago, Chuck Monson from Rotovac stated, “Eriks Zipper patent is on his reversable round glides. He did not invent nor did he patent the dual port concept. Dual port was patented in the 70's and has since expired which allows anyone to make, use and sell it.” In my opinion, his comments about what the Zipper’s patents cover versus what is included in his Bonzer rip-off are not accurate. In fact, none of the claims of the two Zipper patents are simply directed to carpet cleaning / vacuuming device having dual suction ports, nor does the existence of the Koellisch patent from 1973 automatically and necessarily render every possible use of dual vacuum ports in a carpet cleaning apparatus non-patentable and in the public domain. His statements to this effect are false.
Rather, the broadest (independent) claims of the Zipper’s first patent 7,761,955 are directed to a carpet cleaning apparatus including several components, e.g., a vacuum head with two vacuum ports, an elongate solution manifold disposed between the two vacuum ports, elongate glides with suction openings, and with lower surfaces that extend below the bottom face of the vacuum head, etc., while the dependent claims of this patent identify other significant features, including a non-fixed handle connected to the vacuum head, adjustable means (wheels) for facilitating movement of the vacuum head over carpeting, etc. For at least these reasons, it is my opinion that the claims of the Zipper’s first patent 7,761,955 remain valid/patentable in spite of the Koellisch patent, and it would be necessary for a Court/jury to otherwise determine that the claims of patent 7,761,955 are invalid before it would be accurate for anyone to state that use of dual vacuum ports on a carpet cleaning apparatus such as claimed in patent 7,761,955 is simply available for anyone to copy. Generally speaking, most patented inventions are combinations of known / existing components, but this by itself does not make the inventions unpatentable. Rather, it must be established that the specific combination of the known components as set forth in the patent claims is conventional or obvious, so that valid patents are issued on these combinations of known components. For example, with the Zipper there are unique considerations relating to the interactions of the dual vacuum ports, the glides, the non-fixed handle, and adjustable wheels that are certainly not made obvious by the Koellisch patent which does not include these other components, and is intended to function without these other components.
Thus, while it may be true that the carpet cleaning apparatus disclosed and claimed in the Koellisch patent is in the public domain and may be freely copied by anyone, the same cannot be said about the Zipper’s Patent, which (in my opinion) is indisputably distinct from that of Koellisch. More significantly, it is my belief that Rotovac is not copying the carpet cleaning apparatus disclosed in the Koellisch patent, but is more copying the Zipper Wand, which is covered by the claims in the patent.
In my opinion, the initial construction of the Bonzer copied many features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™, including a vacuum head with dual vacuum ports arranged in front and back of cleaning solution discharge chamber, the arrangement of discharge nozzles in the cleaning solution discharge chamber, glides which are slidingly fitted into the mouths of the vacuum ports, retainers which keep the glides secured to the vacuum head, etc., and have since copied other features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ brand, including a non-fixed handle and adjustable-height wheels attached directly to the rear of the vacuum housing, which have an important functional relationship to the dual vacuum ports and glides that is in no way disclosed or suggested by Koellisch. I believe, the Bonzer is copying more and more of the features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™, which are not in the public domain, with the apparent intention of completely copying every feature of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ short of its unique, reversible glides. WHERE IS THEIR CREATIVITY??? It’s a shame that so many features/character are identical.
Also, Chuck from Rotovac claims, “Our goal is to make more effective and affordable cleaning technology available to the thousands of Rotovac customers around the world. Prior to developing the Bonzer, Rotovac attempted to become a distributor for Zipper but were denied. We believe the Bonzer has improvements over the Zipper and also offers a more affordable choice for our customers.” The Bonzer is NOT more effective and affordable cleaning technology than the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™. While the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ may cost a bit more to purchase, their high quality and precision construction assures more reliable, long-term use. As far as Chuck’s claim to being denied to distribute the Zipper- at the time he asked, we were not in the position to have distributors. Our product was fairly new and we couldn’t produce the amount of Zipper Wands for any distributor, it was nothing personal. Although, I guess the next best thing is to steal someone’s idea since you can’t distribute their product! (Not sure where he was going with his distributing statement)
Please read Koellisch’s patent and see the differences for yourself:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...3,747,155.PN.&OS=PN/3,747,155&RS=PN/3,747,155
Rather, the broadest (independent) claims of the Zipper’s first patent 7,761,955 are directed to a carpet cleaning apparatus including several components, e.g., a vacuum head with two vacuum ports, an elongate solution manifold disposed between the two vacuum ports, elongate glides with suction openings, and with lower surfaces that extend below the bottom face of the vacuum head, etc., while the dependent claims of this patent identify other significant features, including a non-fixed handle connected to the vacuum head, adjustable means (wheels) for facilitating movement of the vacuum head over carpeting, etc. For at least these reasons, it is my opinion that the claims of the Zipper’s first patent 7,761,955 remain valid/patentable in spite of the Koellisch patent, and it would be necessary for a Court/jury to otherwise determine that the claims of patent 7,761,955 are invalid before it would be accurate for anyone to state that use of dual vacuum ports on a carpet cleaning apparatus such as claimed in patent 7,761,955 is simply available for anyone to copy. Generally speaking, most patented inventions are combinations of known / existing components, but this by itself does not make the inventions unpatentable. Rather, it must be established that the specific combination of the known components as set forth in the patent claims is conventional or obvious, so that valid patents are issued on these combinations of known components. For example, with the Zipper there are unique considerations relating to the interactions of the dual vacuum ports, the glides, the non-fixed handle, and adjustable wheels that are certainly not made obvious by the Koellisch patent which does not include these other components, and is intended to function without these other components.
Thus, while it may be true that the carpet cleaning apparatus disclosed and claimed in the Koellisch patent is in the public domain and may be freely copied by anyone, the same cannot be said about the Zipper’s Patent, which (in my opinion) is indisputably distinct from that of Koellisch. More significantly, it is my belief that Rotovac is not copying the carpet cleaning apparatus disclosed in the Koellisch patent, but is more copying the Zipper Wand, which is covered by the claims in the patent.
In my opinion, the initial construction of the Bonzer copied many features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™, including a vacuum head with dual vacuum ports arranged in front and back of cleaning solution discharge chamber, the arrangement of discharge nozzles in the cleaning solution discharge chamber, glides which are slidingly fitted into the mouths of the vacuum ports, retainers which keep the glides secured to the vacuum head, etc., and have since copied other features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ brand, including a non-fixed handle and adjustable-height wheels attached directly to the rear of the vacuum housing, which have an important functional relationship to the dual vacuum ports and glides that is in no way disclosed or suggested by Koellisch. I believe, the Bonzer is copying more and more of the features of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™, which are not in the public domain, with the apparent intention of completely copying every feature of the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ short of its unique, reversible glides. WHERE IS THEIR CREATIVITY??? It’s a shame that so many features/character are identical.
Also, Chuck from Rotovac claims, “Our goal is to make more effective and affordable cleaning technology available to the thousands of Rotovac customers around the world. Prior to developing the Bonzer, Rotovac attempted to become a distributor for Zipper but were denied. We believe the Bonzer has improvements over the Zipper and also offers a more affordable choice for our customers.” The Bonzer is NOT more effective and affordable cleaning technology than the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™. While the ZIPPER™ and ZIPPER WAND™ may cost a bit more to purchase, their high quality and precision construction assures more reliable, long-term use. As far as Chuck’s claim to being denied to distribute the Zipper- at the time he asked, we were not in the position to have distributors. Our product was fairly new and we couldn’t produce the amount of Zipper Wands for any distributor, it was nothing personal. Although, I guess the next best thing is to steal someone’s idea since you can’t distribute their product! (Not sure where he was going with his distributing statement)
Please read Koellisch’s patent and see the differences for yourself:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...3,747,155.PN.&OS=PN/3,747,155&RS=PN/3,747,155
