Dating a Petromax ‘5th gen.’ Britelyt lantern -?

If I read the first patent claim I do not understand what they actual claim to be different and therefore new and subject to the claim.
They acknowledge the use of light, heat and cooking ability of others systems but they don't claim, or I miss that part, which is different with their invention.
Light, heat and cooking was already made (patented /) by Graetz with their Petromax 1500.

 

Wim,

That is exactly how I felt when I read the patent. All they do is use smoke and mirrors and repeat themselves over and over in an attempt to make it seem as they have something new to offer and substantiate it when in fact they don't. They keep saying how new their ideas are, ideas not thought of before yet cite half a dozen patents in their design.

 

The double Pederson ring? Everything else looks the same...

 

After briefly reading that patent, I still could not comprehend what exactly was new at the time the application was filed. Perhaps I'd still need to read it many times over .
From an excerpt of it,
What is claimed as being new and desired to be protected by letters patent of the united states is as follows:....

I could not find anything which directly indicated the inventors of that patent themselves ever state any of the claims.
Nevertheless, the application was granted.

 

I thought that was original a German patent too.
But they do expire. I stopped at the first patent maybe the others are more clear in what it is about.

Never the less: the lantern still is the Petromax style type.
You can patent another pumpknob shape thingy but that doesn't make it a new generation.

The only real change I thought I have seen was the workhorse valve design of the positive shutt off.

 

This "crap" about generations is what gets me... it's a Petromax type lantern but as far as I'm concerned it's not a German made Petromax made by Gretz therefore, it's not a true Petromax!
What we are actually talking about here is style.

 

Just as an aside, I think Draper designed something for Coleman too. I couldn't be fagged looking for the patent right now but I think it was a fount. Having said that, my sieve of a brain may be wrong.

 

Could be right, too! I just don't remember her name being associated with Coleman. I would almost think if she was linked in some way to Coleman, they would played this up for all it was worth!