Inventions and Innovations Nominations


Got my vote


I believe the person who actually came up with the idea Roy Cooke is being credited for, did so in this message board on the 24th of January, a ways before Roy’s announcement.

I believe that Roy’s nomination actually rightfully belongs to one David Andersen of Woodlawn Tennessee

See below:


David A. Andersen

vbmenu_register(“postmenu_302338”, true);
David A. Andersen & Associates
InterNACHI Member

User Name: dandersen
Location: Woodlawn, TN
Posts: 1,968

Re: After participating in yesterday’s fusion IR camera demo… I’m not too impressed.
For those that take a lot of IR scans, you can make a bar to clamp a small digital camera to the IR camera at the tripod mounts.

This doesnt deal with the fusion issue but makes “camera swapping” easier on a big job.

How can Vendors be inventors of the year? Shouldn’t that be a separate category such as software of the year?

No Wand

Gary would you like to be nominated?

That might be correct Joe as I see it, but the actuall and physical invention was executed by Roy and announced to the public By John Mckenna on

2/18/08, 6:33 PM

New Cooke Side by Side IR Camera Adapter - $2.00](
Views: 729
Posted By jmckenna1

Re: New Cooke Side by Side IR Camera Adapter - $2.00*

*Congrats Roy. *

As I see it, the invention was by Roy Cooke and was Nominated for such by John McKenna on 04-19-08.

If I am not correct in this, let me know.


Marcel :slight_smile: :smiley:

Can’t there be more than one nomination?


I woke up to this on page one.

website rank.jpg is hosted by Dominic and I only have one page going.



I thought the award was for innovations and inventions.

With all due respect, the US Patent and Trademark office awards invention patents on ideas and design; not physical executions of these ideas. I know this as fact, as my wife holds a US PatentTo say that taking a piece of metal and drilling both ends to accomodate a screw is an “invention” is inaccurate, especially after learning how another NACHI member came up with the idea and posted it here first
I believe the invention nomination for this innovation rightfully belongs to David Andersen.

David even commented about this on the thread where Roy is complemented.

Wrong is wrong.

Ideas are not patentable.

An invention needs to be nothing more than an idea, shown to be unique and useful. One needs to only look at Nicola Tesla’s inventions, some of twhich were patented, which were little more than ideas. He was actually granted the patent rights for inventing the radio, when that patent was stripped from Marconi years later. At the time of the filing, it was little more than an idea.

Another example of an idea being invented was the person who dreamed up voice mail. There was no “invention”, per se; only the concept. TO this day, royalties on each system sold goes to the foundation formed by this “inventor”.

To say that an idea cannot be patented, is patently false. Can you jot down a stram of conscious thoughts on a napkin and claim everything under the sun that comes from it? No.

But, all inventions that have no prototype associated with them are little more than ideas.

BTW, the USPTO wont grant a patent on some things without seeing them executed. An example would be a light-speed engine for a space craft. In this particular case, we arent talking rocket science. We’re speaking about a piece of pig iron with two drilled holes.

Why am I responding? You’re not posting! Did somebody say something?

I have to agree with Ray. It seems to me that ‘inventions’ by vendors should fall into another category. Individuals who invest their time to ‘blue sky’, design and develop an ‘invention’ do so with little or no possibility of a financial reward at the end. Furthermore, they do so, presumably, while balancing their jobs, family life and limited to no R + D budget.

I am not saying that vendors shouldn’t be recognized for their contributions. I just don’t think that it is fair to the ‘little guys’ who contribute too, to be lumped into the same category that includes those who develop products professionally for profit.

A patent cannot be obtained based on an mere idea or suggestion. The inventor must supply a complete description of how the invention is implemented. To be patentable the invention: Must be a useful process (primarily includes industrial or technical processes, and now also includes “methods of doing business”), machine, manufacture (includes all manufactured articles), or composition of matter (chemical compositions, mixtures of ingredients or new chemical compounds). Essentially, patents can protect (practically anything made by man and the processes for making those things. The invention must be useful. A machine, for instance, must perform its intended use. The invention must be novel and not obvious over prior art. Even if it is not exactly as shown by prior art and it has one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious to a person who has ordinary skill in the area of the technology relating to the invention. It cannot be known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication anywhere. If the inventor describes the invention in a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on sale, they must apply for a patent before one year has gone by. If information regarding your invention or innovation is published, the U.S. provides a one-year grace period for filing a patent application to seek patent protection. A patent cannot be obtained based on an mere idea or suggestion. The inventor must supply a complete description of how the invention is implemented. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.

Dominic just added an alert system, so that we know when and whom is looking at the report.
Done this morning.
Great job Dominic.
Never stop impressing me.

That’s what I like about Home Guage. I can see when and if and by whom the report was opened. I did an inspection last week on an attorney’s home and she still hasn’t downloaded the report. I can also assign forwarding rights or not release the report until payment is received.


Since I do not run a Patent Office, and don’t patent ideas, but only to process Nominations fowarded to me and the Awards Committe.
I would have to say that the actual invention was constructed and designed and marketed to the general Members of this Board on 2-18-08.

Since the concept of the idea came prior to that and I was not privy to that comment, I would have to say that it was just that, a comment. I process the Nomination accordingly.

The idea was materialized by Roy Cooke.

Thank you,

Marcel:) :smiley:

Who also happens to be a member of your committee.

Give credit where credit is due.

David Andersen’s idea was designed (described) and marketed (posted) to the members of this association (on this message board)on 1/24/2008. The fact that you may not have seen the post does not invalidate its existence, nor does it invalidate this innovation.


I hereby nominate David Andersen for inventor/innovator of the year for proposing a bar for interconnection between an infrared camera and conventional camera, where he aptly describes where the bar can be connected at the tripod mounting screws.

Please process this nomination.


Why is thread which, started with the nomination of Dominic Maricic for the I & I award being turned into a thread where Roy’s “invention” is being discussed?

Take it to a different thread if you wouldn’t mind.

If you want to Nominate someone, please use the Nomination form here](

and send it to my e-mail. Follow instructions on how to Nominate.

I will let the Committee review it.

Marcel :slight_smile: :smiley: