Air Force One Should Have An Escalator Ramp For The President

Have you noticed that our President and Dignitaries on Air Force One and Air Force Two have to walk up stairs to get in? Why? Shouldn’t they have escalators on those portable stairs? Remember how much trouble Hillary Clinton had getting into her little leased Boeing 737? If she had won the presidency in November of 2016, she wouldn’t be able to make it up all those stairs into a 747 which is twice the uphill hike as that little 737. Russian President Putin doesn’t have an escalator either but his aircraft is much smaller than a Boeing 747 like Air Force One, in fact side-by-side, it looks like a toy, although it does have a nice interior (cite: 1).

Recently, Donald Trump was in a hurry to go, so he jogged up the stairs, got into the aircraft without waving good bye to the media, and that upset the leftist media quite a bit. No matter he was just trying to get going, as he was late and also had to use the rest room. Now then, if the ground equipment – moveable staircase – was an escalator – President Trump could have turned to the crowd to wave good bye and satisfied the media so they could have the iconic picture of him at that moment.

Of course, in the interest of time – the stair case would need to be operated on double time for Trump, because he could run up the thing at that speed anyway. Still, as everyone knows when you run up a moving escalator going the same way you can really make good time, and time is money. This system needs to be electric, and still viable as a stair case when not moving. This allows regular folks, assistants and reporters to board by walking up the stairs. It also allows maintenance, security detail, and flight crew to do the same.

The escalator system should have motion sensors once activated for the President or dignitary. It should go both ways – up and down, in the down motion it should be slower, and going up at 3-different speed settings, slow, fast, and expedite. It’s interesting this doesn’t exist yet, and a wonder why we have an aircraft of this caliber without this upgraded ground equipment feature. Please consider all this and think on it.

Cites:

(1) YouTube Video: “Russian IL-96!Flying Fortress!Putin’s Plane!” Russian Presidential Aircraft.

(2) YouTube Video: “Trump Didn’t Wave Goodbye to Media When Boarding Air Force One – And They’re Upset.”…

Revocation of Patent

A patent is a territorial right which excludes others from making, using, selling or manufacturing. A patent get published after eighteen months from the filing or priority date.

Any person can file an opposition within six months from the patent publication based on the prescribed grounds which is called pre-grant opposition. After patent is granted, within a year a person interested can file opposition based on prescribed grounds called post grant opposition. If a person has missed these two chances, he has other option to challenge a patent at any time of patent by revocation of patents under section 64 Indian patent Act.

Patent can be revoked anytime during the life of patent by any person interested. Revocation of patents may be brought up in two ways.

1. One is the Intellectual Property Appellate Board where a revocation petition can be filed by any person interested or by the Central government.

2. Another forum is High Court where revocation of patent is argued as a counter-claim in a suit for infringement of a patent.

A notice of any petition for the revocation of a patent under Section 64 must be served to all persons appearing on the register as proprietors of the patent or to have shares or interests therein and it is not necessary to serve notice on any other person.

Revocation of patents can be brought on following grounds:

1. The invention as claimed through the claims in complete specification was claimed earlier through a valid claim contained in complete specification of another patent granted and having earlier priority date.

2. The patent was granted on the application of a person not entitled to apply under the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970.

3. The patent was obtained wrongfully i.e. in contravention of the rights of the petitioner or any person under or through whom he claims.

4. The subject-matter of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of the Patents Act.

5. The invention claimed through any claim of the complete specification is not new having regard to anticipation by previous publication and by prior claim as referred to in Section 13.

6. The invention claimed through claims in the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step having regard to what was publicly known or used in India OR what was published in India or elsewhere before the priority date of the claim.

7. The invention as claimed is not useful.

8. The complete specification does not sufficiently and fairly describe the invention and the method by which it is to be performed. The description of the method or the instructions for the working of the invention is not themselves sufficient to enable a person ordinarily skilled in the art to work the invention and also the complete specification does not disclose the best method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and for which he was entitled to claim protection.

9. The scope …