LED lights

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Just to add to the above, a utility patent also has to have an invention. The new use for an old something has to be novel and non-obvious.

and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.

personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..

Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.

Steve

[albert_dao]

PFO lost that battle because they ran out of money, not because the patent was valid.

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

and to play devils advocate, they do have an invention of a novel idea that is usefull. and they regestered for a patent befor anyone else had applied or was even using such a system comercialy.

personaly I think looking into this is a waist of your time, but if you have time to waist.... PFO had there court battle claiming it was to broad and encompasing and tried to have the pattent revoked and lost..

Pattents serve a purpose and I suport them.. we can't just arbatrarly not honor the ones that incoveniance us. that would be like me taking you to court to have your patent revoked because we don't like the fact that we can't do it to.

Steve

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Well see my last post to decide whether they have an invention or not. Some say yes, some say no.

I do support patents wholeheartedly but the patent system has its flaws and sometimes stupid patents like this one get through that cause problems for an industry and favour people who really invented nothing (ever heard of patent trolls?). Sorry, using LEDs for aquarium lighting is not an invention, it is obvious. You can't patent something that is obvious or an obvious improvement on existing technology. At the risk of repeating myself it HAS to be non-obvious and novel.

In pharmaceuticals if there is a drug out that treats arthritis by an anti-inflammatory mechanism we cannot patent that drug for the treatment of another autoimmune disease by means of anti-inflammatory activity. That would be an obvious extension of its utility. We could however, file a use patent on that drug if we found that it had another activity besides being an anti-inflammatory that say prevented hair loss. The hair loss prevention is unrelated, unknown and unexpected in relation to the anti-arthritis activity. So I fail to see how using a light source to light an aquarium is not obvious

Now if Orbitec have some specific control scheme or can demonstrate that specific spectra over specific time periods enhance growth then that would be an invention. They have not done that. They have simply stated that throwing a controller on an LED array to control colour spectrum and time is something new that wasn't obvious and and they were the first to think of it. That's BS.

And as mentioned above, the PFO lawsuit never reached its conclusion because they went belly up.

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light..

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light..

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve

Hi Steve,

You raise a few good points but still not accurate in my opinion.

1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003. So high power LEDs had been around. There is also some prior art published in Advanced Aquarist and possibly elsewhere testing LEDs as aquarium lighting earlier in 2003. Besides, Orbitec's patent simply stated LEDs and does not make a distinction between low power or high power etc. They state that no commercial LED systems were available which is true but the idea had already been published by others. There is also the issue I have raised about obviousness. The question still remains as to whether using a newly available lighting source to light aquariums is novel or obvious.

2. Yes it is true that LEDs degrade more slowly and differently than other lights but their rate of degradation is entirely dependent on how they are cooled and on the particular environment and use. Orbitec implied that they do not degrade which is somewhat inaccurate. In any case, if you invented the longer life LEDs then you could patent them but I do not think a longer duty cycle is a valid patenting point for a use patent. It is obvious because the emitters last longer so you don't have to change them as often. Nothing surprising there.

3. If you read the patent it is very specific as to what is claimed (as patents must be). That is why you see multiple claims in patents to try to cover various bases. The patent claims:

1. A combination marine habitat and lighting system therefor comprising: a marine habitat having an open top defined by a top edge and a lighting system including: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side; an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

3. The combination of claim 1 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

4. The combination of claim 1 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

5. A lighting system for a marine habitat of the type having an open top defined by a top edge, said lighting system comprising: a housing connectable to said top edge to substantially cover said open top, said housing further including an inner side facing said open top when said housing is connected to said top edge and an opposite outer side; an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

6. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source, when activated, is sufficient to support marine growth.

7. The lighting system of claim 5 wherein said LED light source includes at least one of chip-based, organic or discreet LEDs.

8. The combination of claim 5 wherein each of said light engines is capable of providing light intensity of from 0 to 1000 micro mols per square meter per second.

The operative part to look at is this:

an LED light source mounted to the inner side of said housing, said LED light source comprising at least one light engine having a plurality of individual LEDs capable of providing light at a wavelength from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; a power supply sufficient to drive said LEDs; a controller connected with said power source for controlling the activation status and the intensity of one or more of said individual LEDs; and a cooling system provided in said housing.

What is claimed is that combination of elements. So a straight LED array without a controller for controlling the activation status and intensity should be outside the scope of the patent. I have reviewed enough patents to be fairly sure of that. That is why you are seeing a bunch of fixtures with LEDs and no controller or combo fixtures with LEDs and T5s etc. but no controller. AI felt they had to license the patent because they have a controller.

4. Yes the drug industry is heavily regulated from the standpoint of marketing approval and sales but that is separate from the patenting. Dugs are patented like anything else and are subject to the same criteria as mousetraps or toothbrushes when it comes to patents. Completely separate criteria and governance than drug approvals. You can have a patent issued on a drug but have it fail in testing and not be approved for sale.

5. The same principals apply no matter what you are patenting. If your rotatiller guide is obvious to those skilled in the art of rotatillers and is similar to other rotatiller guides, even if you made it out of different parts, it is not novel and non-obvious and you could not patent it. You would have to have some surprising improvement over other rotatiller guides in order to be able to patent it. Have a look at this:

http://web.mit.edu/invent/h-chapters/h-three.html

The really important part in my opinion is:

Nonobvious: To be patentable, your invention must give new and nonobvious results compared to known approaches. Ordinary differences in size, materials or other obvious modifications are generally not patentable.

So even though I am not an expert on lighting systems and engineering I do know how patents work and understand the criteria to make something patentable. I still don't see anything surprising or non-obvious in Orbitec's patent. Using LEDs to light an aquarium does not give new and non-obvious results compared to T5, Mh etc. I can almost guarantee that they had a patent examiner who didn't know much about lighting systems or aquarium lighting and just went with what was in the patent with minimal research into it.

Cheers,

Ron

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Hi Steve,



1. The first high power lumiled LEDs came out in 1998 or 1999 I believe. Yes they were expensive but they were already being incorporated into products such as flashlights by 2001. Orbitec filed their patent on December 15th, 2004 and IRRC they may have filed a PPA a year earlier so that would have been no earlier than December 15th, 2003.
Cheers,

Ron

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

um the patent I am reading by them was filed in early 2002, if they did a provisional that would put them early 2001, which means they were at the same time as the release of high power LEDs . now they do have two patents on theses so maybe the one your reading is the second one?

Steve

What's the patent number? I have two patents I am looking at:

1. 7,220,018 which was filed on Dec 15, 2004 (and I now see it lists a PPA filed Dec. 15, 2003) and issued on May 22, 2007.

2. 7,473,008 filed March 22, 2007 which is the new continuation where they are now trying to claim all LED lighting even without a controller.

[StirCrazy]

ok so the first patent was applied for on dec 2003. the 2002 one was a supporting doccument. in there prior art statment they say there are many systems availble producing light capable of sustaining marine life, but none using LEDs as the light source. so that is a valid point.

one thing I have been wondering about is the anti trust laws pertaining to monopolies.. I think for them to get around this they would have to grant all licencing rights to companies willing to pay there fee.

proving prior art in court seams to be the only way to bust this patent but.. it costs 180.00us just to file your prior art for them to concider and prior art has to be certified by a qualified inspector at the time. so pictures of systems over our tanks 10 years ago doesn't cut it.

I would like to see this busted as much as anyone but I think that most big companies are just waiting for review years to see if they renew, or waiting till it expiers as it is to hard and very very expensive to fight a patent that is inplace.

Steve

[banditpowdercoat]

The Patent may have been filed in 2002, but people WERE thinking of using LED's on tanks. It;s just the 3w LED's were not mainstream enough. I do not see the patent as an un-obvious use of LED's, or a lighting controller. We (reef community) had allready experimented with LED's, and were waiting for better ones to come on the market. To me, this patent has some pretty serious holes/Grey area's in it.

Originally Posted by StirCrazy

ok one thing here is your caught in the time warp.. you keep reading this as if it was applied for today.. they files in 2002 and at that time there was no discusion of using LEDs for anything but acent lighting as crees wern't out/afordable yet and we were only playing with 5mm LEDs. so at the time this was aplied for we were only using leds for decrative purposes. I even did PAR tests on 5mm leds and they were junk. untill 3watt leds were redily availble no one used leds as a primary lighting source then a while later solarus came out with 3 watt leds but they were off shore cheep ones that had a lot of burn out problems.

also you should get 50000 hours befor you lose 15 to 20 % or the brightness only the spectral wavelenth stays the same where in other lights both the brightness and wavelenght are decreased/changed. so there is some valid points there.

I don't know if you would get away with making a system with out a controler.. it looks like the controler is an inclusion to the main patent of using one or more LEDs over an aquarium to permote grother of marine life.. I would have to read it agin though.. one thing that did pop into my head is you could maybe sell a system for fresh water tanks and sell it as an ornamental light.. the only thing I would wonder about is the spectral wavelenth for color they mention.. that might be a catch all for fresh water use.. but if it is sold as an accent light it might be able to squeek through as long as you don't think anyone would use it as a primary light..

now from my understanding the drug trade is heavy regulated by the goverment to do with patents also to allow the goverment and medical system access to clone drugs for cheep.

with this one you have to look at it not as you you would a drug where you are dealing with a specific compound but rater.. hmm whats the best way to look at it.. lets say I go to home depot and buy a bunch of off the shelf stuff. with that I go home and build a system that automates a rotatiller so it will follow a string and keep your garden tilled inbetween the rows. did I invent the rotatiller... no.. did I invent any parts I used.. no, but I did invent the process and use of the combanation of these parts to achieve a purpose. so I can now patent it and sell them myselves or go in partnership with another company who wants to build it and sell them and give me a cut.. that is what they have done.

Steve