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
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 (!).
bench that could only exist because my rights were stolen from me:
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
that was part of my original application but was changed to
and then passed on to the Faust patent.
One of these two aspects
alone should have resulted in the blocking of the Faust patent !
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
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
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
We notice on the Faust patent that R. J. Apley is the
comparison shows us clearly that the same thing was invented twice.
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.
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
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.
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
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!