The Truth About Dr. W. Robert Cook’s “Bitless Bridle

The history of Dr. Cook’s Bitless Bridle is as follows:
In 1988 Edward Allan Buck invented the cross under the jaw rein technology bitless bridle, now named the Spirit Bridle, and applied for a patent, to which the U. S. Patent Office issued an application number #149,640. Submitted were photographs and drawings detailing the same rein ring connector technology as seen in the Cook Bitless Bridle.   Mr. Buck was attempting to receive a patent for his Spirit Bridle under U. S. Patent Office application number #09/030632 in 2003, while Dr. Cook was fraudulently attempting to patent the original design.   Under patent law the U. S. Patent Office could not even accept the Cook application simply because Dr. Cook was not the ORIGINAL inventor of the cross under the jaw rein technology bitless bridle.

Who May Apply For A Patent [the Patent law]
According to the law, only the inventor may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions. If a person who is not the inventor should apply for a patent, the patent, if it were obtained, would be invalid. The person applying in such a case who falsely states that he/she is the inventor would also be subject to criminal penalties. If the inventor is dead, the application may be made by legal representatives, that is, the administrator or executor of the estate. If the inventor is insane, the application for patent may be made by a guardian. If an inventor refuses to apply for a patent or cannot be found, a joint inventor or, if there is no joint inventor available, a person having a proprietary interest in the invention may apply on behalf of the non-signing inventor.
If two or more persons make an invention jointly, they apply for a patent as joint inventors. A person who makes only a financial contribution is not a joint inventor and cannot be joined in the application as an inventor. It is possible to correct an innocent mistake in erroneously omitting an inventor or in erroneously naming a person as an inventor.
Officers and employees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office are prohibited by law from applying for a patent or acquiring, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any patent or any right or interest in any patent.

35 U.S.C. 25Declaration in lieu of oath.
(a)The Director may by rule prescribe that any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration in such form as the Director may prescribe, such declaration to be in lieu of the oath otherwise required.
(b)Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001).
35 U.S.C. 101Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 102Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
(a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b)the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
(c)he has abandoned the invention, or
(d)the invention was first patented or caused to be patented, or was the subject of an inventor’s certificate, by the applicant or his legal representatives or assigns in a foreign country prior to the date of the application for patent in this country on an application for patent or inventor’s certificate filed more than twelve months before the filing of the application in the United States, or
(e)the invention was described in — (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language; or
(f)he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
(g)(1)during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
35 U.S.C. 115Oath of applicant.
The applicant shall make oath that he believes himself to be the original and first inventor of the process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or improvement thereof, for which he solicits a patent; and shall state of what country he is a citizen. Such oath may be made before any person within the United States authorized by law to administer oaths, or, when made in a foreign country, before any diplomatic or consular officer of the United States authorized to administer oaths, or before any officer having an official seal and authorized to administer oaths in the foreign country in which the applicant may be, whose authority is proved by certificate of a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or apostille of an official designated by a foreign country which, by treaty or convention, accords like effect to apostilles of designated officials in the United States. Such oath is valid if it complies with the laws of the state or country where made. When the application is made as provided in this title by a person other than the inventor, the oath may be so varied in form that it can be made by him. For purposes of this section, a consular officer shall include any United States citizen serving overseas, authorized to perform notarial functions pursuant to section 1750 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (22 U.S.C. 4221).

35 U.S.C. 135Interferences.
(a)Whenever an application is made for a patent which, in the opinion of the Director, would interfere with any pending application, or with any unexpired patent, an interference may be declared and the Director shall give notice of such declaration to the applicants, or applicant and patentee, as the case may be. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences shall determine questions of priority of the inventions and may determine questions of patentability. Any final decision, if adverse to the claim of an applicant, shall constitute the final refusal by the Patent and Trademark Office of the claims involved, and the Director may issue a patent to the applicant who is adjudged the prior inventor. A final judgment adverse to a patentee from which no appeal or other review has been or can be taken or had shall constitute cancellation of the claims involved in the patent, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation by the Patent and Trademark Office.
(b)(1)A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an issued patent may not be made in any application unless such a claim is made prior to one year from the date on which the patent was granted.
(2)A claim which is the same as, or for the same or substantially the same subject matter as, a claim of an application published under section 122(b) of this title may be made in an application filed after the application is published only if the claim is made before 1 year after the date on which the application is published.
(c)Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the agreement or understanding. If any party filing the same so requests, the copy shall be kept separate from the file of the interference, and made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause. Failure to file the copy of such agreement or understanding shall render permanently unenforceable such agreement or understanding and any patent of such parties involved in the interference or any patent subsequently issued on any application of such parties so involved. The Director may, however, on a showing of good cause for failure to file within the time prescribed, permit the filing of the agreement or understanding during the six-month period subsequent to the termination of the interference as between the parties to the agreement or understanding.
The Director shall give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record, a reasonable time prior to said termination, of the filing requirement of this section. If the Director gives such notice at a later time, irrespective of the right to file such agreement or understanding within the six-month period on a showing of good cause, the parties may file such agreement or understanding within sixty days of the receipt of such notice.
Any discretionary action of the Director under this subsection shall be reviewable under section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act.
(d)Parties to a patent interference, within such time as may be specified by the Director by regulation, may determine such contest or any aspect thereof by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of title 9 to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Director, and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Director from determining patentability of the invention involved in the interference.

The Actual True Story of Dr. W. Robert Cook's Theft of the Original Bitless Bridle

The birth of Spirit Bridle originated with several meetings held with Mr. Don Woodruff, the inventor of the Be Nice Halter. Mr. Woodruff and Mr. Buck tried to make the Be Nice Halter function as a bridle in the manner Mr. Buck had envisioned, however, the Be Nice Halter could not function correctly as that kind of bridle and subsequently Mr. Buck engineered the first version of Spirit Bridle with the rein connectors.
Mr. Buck subsequently changed the original design and the U. S. Patent Office issued a new application number without an interruption of the application date. The U. S. Patent Office issued the number because of the design changes that occurred when Mr. Buck discovered that the original design had a dangerous flaw. The rein connectors, which allowed for the owner of a bridle to use their own reins, maintained an interruption of the contact with the horse that could and did result in loss of control of the horse.
Dr. Cook was introduced to Mr. Buck through Ms. Sigourney Richmond-Darby, whom had read a book on racehorse breathing written by Dr. Cook and felt the two men should meet as Dr. Cook had theories on breathing while Mr. Buck had acquired the facts experienced through the invention of the bitless bridle and could/did inform Dr. Cook about breathing and muscle structure interaction in horses.
Dr. Cook met with Ms. Richmond-Darby, Mr. Charles Weed and Mr. Buck at the Showpark in Del Mar, California after Dr. Cook had attended a veterinary conference in Phoenix, Arizona at which he spoke of the bitless bridle. At this meeting Dr. Cook observed three horses in the bitless bridle and had extensive conversation with Mr. Buck, Mr. Weed and Ms. Richmond-Darby, regarding the operation of Spirit Bridle the bitless bridle and its notable success on every horse is was used on. Dr. Cook inquired about having the rein connectors instead of the continuous reins and was informed by Mr. Buck and Mr. Weed of the dangerous situation such a design created. Dr. Cook was informed that Mr. Buck had tested that design and rejected that exact design as dangerous, unreliable, unsafe and inefficient in creating lateral and longitudinal flexion, collection, and braking. Dr. Cook was shown the photographs used by Mr. Buck in the original patent application which contained images of the rein connectors.
Within a short period of time after this meeting, Dr. Cook and Mr. Buck incorporated Spirit Horse Ltd. in the state of Delaware to produce and promote Spirit Bridle. Mr. Buck was President and Dr. Cook was Chief Veterinary Officer. Dr. Cook began to write numerous articles about Spirit Bridle, however, referencing it most of the time
as the bitless bridle. Dr. Cook had made an agreement with Mr. Buck to obtain substantial investors that would provide for the financial stability of the company, thus providing a joint livelihood; however, Dr. Cook’s effort raised only $1500.00. Mr. Buck was forced to use monies received from sales of the bridle [which were few] to live and was unable to provide bitless bridles to customers due to Dr. Cook’s lack of promised capitalization of the company. During this time period Dr. Cook had begun a campaign of misrepresenting Spirit Bridle as Bitless Bridle and Dr. Cook quickly resigned from Spirit Horse Ltd.
Shortly after Dr. Cook’s resignation it was discovered that he was selling and representing Mr. Buck’s Spirit Bridle as Dr. Cook’s Bitless Bridle, including informing potential customers, the media and others that Dr. Cook had “invented” bitless bridle. As a material fact of his illegal activities, Dr. Cook took Mr. Buck’s Spirit Bridle to Equitana 2000 representing it as Dr. Cook’s invention under the name Bitless Bridle and received the award for Best Innovative New Product. This information came to light after Mr. Buck received a telephone call from one of his customers stating they saw Dr. Cook and Mr. Buck’s Spirit Bridle at Equitana under the name Bitless Bridle. Subsequently, Mr. Buck spoke with the Manager of Equitana and he validated the information and apologized for the misrepresentations by Dr. Cook.
After repeated contacts from Mr. Buck, Dr. Cook changed the design and reverted back to Mr. Buck’s original 1988 design even though Dr. Cook was fully aware of the design flaws which included making the bitless bridle dangerous.
The Fraudulent Patent
On July 15, 2003, the United States Patent Office issued patent number 6,591,589 to Dr. W. Robert Cook for the “Bitless Bridle”. This patent is illegal under patent laws and the perpetration of patent fraud upon the United States is a federal felony.

1. Dr. Cook did not inform the U. S. Patent Office of his personal and business involvement with Spirit Bridle and Mr. Buck; this is a federal crime.
2. Dr. Cook’s design is not an ‘improvement on Mr. Buck’s design, it is in fact a complete reversal to a dangerous design.
3. Dr. Cook’s patent claims that the “Bitless Bridle” is humane and does not cause pain and discomfort to the horse is fraudulent.
4. Dr. Cook made false and fraudulent claims to the U. S. Patent Office which is a federal crime
5. Dr. Cook has made false and fraudulent statements on his website and in print media which constitutes criminal acts.

There are sufficient documents filed within the Federal District Court system to validate the claims set forth regarding Dr. Cook’s fraudulent procurement of a patent. The real question is functionality…the Dr. Cook bitless bridle cannot function correctly as the operating technology was created for…the Spirit Bridle does function correctly.

Spirit Bridle won a two and three-quarter mile steeplechase race in England on August 30, 1999 on a horse named Fabulon and the bridle was given full credit for the win.

Spirit Bridle at the 2000 Equitana Show was awarded Best Innovative New Tack, but received this honor under the name Bitless Bridle as it was presented by Dr. W. Robert Cook

Spirit Bridle was approved for thoroughbred horse racing in 2002 by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

Spirit Bridle produces with exemplary critical light contact and accuracy:
Lateral flexion,
Longitudinal flexion,
Complete engagement of the back
Complete engagement of the hindquarters
Lengthening of the shoulder swing
Constant light contact by the rider
Lightening of the impact forces on the forehand
Natural balance of the horse {no rocking horse motion}
Full and complete braking system

These are just some of the attributes the Spirit Bridle [Bitless Bridle “the original”] releases for horse and rider.
As the actual and factual inventor of the Dr. Cook Bitless Bridle and subsequent copy cat bitless bridles, I can state unequivocally that if a client is seeking a bitless bridle product predicated upon the truth and is seeking the individual who presents integrity regarding such a bitless bridle product, then one should open their eyes to see, open their ears to hear.

*Copy Cat Bridles * 

Individuals and companies who sell and or manufacture copycat bitless bridles with the cross under the jaw rein operating technology, have taken my intellectual property and used it for their personal gain.

No matter what country they reside and/or do business in, they have taken my intellectual property which was not in the public domain in any country until I applied for patent in 1988 in the United States.

Question: What individual really knows how the design should work?

Question: What individual really would have produced the product that performs correctly?

Question: Integrity, what individual really is demonstrating true integrity?

Dr. Robert Cook wrote numerous articles and letters internationally about the new/original bitless bridle known as Spirit Bridle.   From those published articles, individuals and/or companies from many countries began to manufacture and sell the design as theirs.

Nutural Bitless Bridle, Bitless Bridle, and all the other bitless bridle copycats, seem to state unequivically that their bitless bridles out perform the other bitless bridles.

The copycat 'creators' do not make their bridle models function as succinct units, creating lateral flexion of the poll and neck, freedom of the shoulder, engagement of the back and complete thorough engagement of the hindquarters.

The copycat 'creators' appear not to be able to disseminate the correct operational functions of the design in order for the rider to achieve optimum performance through correct usage of the design.

The original purveyor of the copycat bridles is:

and all resellers of and representatives of Bitless Bridle.   



Bitless Bridle drawings by Dr. W. Robert Cook
Notice the ony difference between it and Spirit Bridle is only the rein connectors.   These rein connectors were in my original 1988 design which proved to be operating flaws.
The original drawings of Spirit Bridle by Dr. W. Robert Cook.   He modified my original drawings I had done by another individual
Herein is a truthful account regarding the bridle marketed as the "Bitless Bridle".

For legal information, all statements herein are documentable by legal documents.

Under the laws of the United States, Dr. W. Robert Cook was not entitled to the fraudulent patent he recieved. 

Dr. Cook has also misrepresented his acquisition of certain knowledge regarding bitless bridle and its affects upon the horse.

Dr. Cook has also fraudulently misrepresented certain printed documents and publications by changing the original printing of Spirit Bridle into Bitless Bridle {Thoroughbred Times is one such publication}