Faust US Patent No. 4,098,502
Back to index                                Back to Weider Licenses Bench

           The Faust patent was confirmed on the 4 th July 1978. The most important public
                               holiday in the USA! The patent office was closed!
                Page 1         Page 2          Page 3         Page 4           Page5          Page 6


Latest discoveries!   

The US-Examiner H. Apley confirms on
04.07.1978 the Faust US Patent No. 4 098 502 as a
 Multi Purpose
Exercise Bench. On the first page of the Faust Patent he has not even
mentioned my invention although he
knew that my invention was also a
Multi Purpose
Exercising Bench. It was no big deal for him to refer to my
patent and find out that the name of
my patent had been changed from Multi Purpose Exercising Device into
Milti Purpose
Exercising Device. Similarly, he was quickly able to determine after my Claim 1 that a barbell
did not belong in the ends of the horizontal tubes, extending above and parallel to the axis of
the bench.
In connection with the vertical posts of the bar and the pull machine, this barbell now blocked
the rights of the
pull machine and the bar.
See Rennemann patent, destruction by US-ExaminerPinkham.
Why would US-Examiner Pinkham confirm my invention as an
Exercising Device and not as
Exercise Bench? According to the statement of Examiner Apley my invention is a Bench, a fact also realized by Examiner Pinkham! 

See statement by US-Examiner Apley in the McIntosh US Patent Page 3.

See in History Page 4 . . . .

The US patent I found was No. 4,098,502 invented by a Mr. Faust in 1978. The Faust patent is „a multi-purpose exercise bench that can be readily converted to anyone of several  different uses quickly and without the use of tools.“
My own german patent (1,908,220) was for„an exercising device that so improves the prior art that it allows the many individual devices to be combined into one single device which needs less space and is transportable.“

The unusual thing about it is that it was not a multifunctional bench.  The revolutionary thing about my bench was the telescoping tubular post mast which made the modular system possible.  The telescoping mast is the most important element that renders the bench multifunctional and it is not found in the patent of Faust.  The strangest thing of all is that Faust obtained the patent on 4th of July which is the most important bank holiday in the USA when all agencies are closed (!).

      A  Faust bench that could only exist because my rights were stolen from me:

  1. In the (deleted) original claim the flat bench is to be secured. In the new (examiner) Claim 1 it is not secured. The examiner only mentions a bench, the specific word "Flach" (flat) is missing. Thus, the support by a flat bench, which is part of my multi purpose bench, is missing while it is now part of the Faust patent.

  2. The term "Multi" that was part of my original application but was changed to "Milti" and then passed on to the Faust patent.

              One of these two aspects alone should have resulted in the blocking of the Faust patent !
                                                          Multi                                       Milti

This means that the same thing was invented twice! And it is an international rule in Germany and America that once a thing is invented, it cannot be re-invented a second time, please compare the two patents.

Therefore, the Faust US patent should never have been issued in 1978 in America because my German patent was issued in 1972 first in Germany. And the only person who could register my German patent in America was me. And the only time I was allowed to do it was during the priority period back in 1970. So the question now arises how Faust could have registered his US patent in 1978? (Jul. 4!!) But first I want to compare the Faust features with mine.

The Faust US patent No. 4,098,502 contains in (in part):-     
a flat bench, see Fig. 1, 10 
    a inclined bench, see Fig. 1, 12
                -    a barbell bench press, Fig. 1, 26/ 24 
                  -   a means for dips, see Fig. 1, 94,

My German patent No. 1,908,220 contains (among other features):
 Please in CD2 in Parts list Number 4 and see in Nummer (7a)
                  -  a flat bench, see Fig. A
   a inclined bench, see Fig. E
  a barbell bench press, see Fig. D
   a means for dips, see Fig. F 

This comparison shows us clearly that the same thing was invented twice.
And inventing the same thing twice is not permitted under the law.
We notice on the Faust patent that R. J. Apley is the Primary Examiner.

This comparison shows us clearly that the same thing was invented twice.  And inventing the same thing twice is not permitted under the law.

We notice on the Faust patent that R. J. Apley is the Primary Examiner. Apley was not an Examiner on my US patent No. 3,625,511 in 1971. But he was an Assistant Examiner on the Gaul US patent No. 3,342,485  
The Gaul US patent was the forerunner of mine.

US examiner Apley, meanwhile US Chief Examiner knew the Gaul invention exactly and that the Gaul invention was about a simple „single“ exercise bench. 

During the research for the Faust patent regarding novelty, state of the art technique he knew where he had to look for it.

He had been dealing with this invention for quite some time, and meanwhile become an expert in this sector. He knew in which categorie patents were filed which could be held out against a Faust Multi Exercising Bench. The Faust patent was to supersede a simple exercise bench and this bench he knew.  Determinedly, he took the Gaul patent from the US patent category 272-58 (a single bench).  In this category he conducted further research, also saw my US patent 3,625,511 which was also filed in the category 272-58.  In order to not get into conflict with my US-patent 3,625,511 he simply altered the patent category of the Gaul patent from 272-58 into the category 272-145.

(See the pecularities in respect of the cancellation of my originally submitted rights by the US examiner Pinkham. This can be looked up in the history tracing of the patent.  See US Patent Attorney Koch!  The US examiner Apley could have looked this up, too, in the US Patent Authority and he had to become aware instantly even of the name Milti!

That way he avoided to be reproached later on for the fact that the US patent No. 3,625,511 in it’s originally submitted state with its description and main drawing had blocked the Faust patent!