Greg, a worthy insight. Equally one can conclude that it presents more uses case as the patent suggests.
-
-
You do know that patent watching is the *least* reliable method of predicting Apple, yes?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Greg, indeed. I have a success in predicting Apple Pay and the removal of the 3.5mm headphone jack in 2011.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Look, I think a ceramic iPhone is a possibility, but *nothing* you have cited goes to the core Q-
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Greg, Apple seems to present air pocket mitigation as important http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220150217479%22.PGNR.&OS=DN%2F20150217479&RS=DN%2F20150217479 …pic.twitter.com/9UacIITEKL
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Air voids are a manufacturing defect, not a material weakness. This patent mitigates that defect…
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Greg, indeed. Mitigating air pockets strengthens Zirconia based ceramics. The patented CIM process does this.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
No, it does *NOT* strengthen the component. It solves a manufacturing defect.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Greg, High production of Zirconia Ceramics produces air pockets. This allows for higher fracture rates.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Most ceramic failures do not nucleate at/because of air pockets.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Greg, this is not what Apple is presenting in the patent.pic.twitter.com/DqRi60v7Wq
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.