LED lights

[Canadian]

Originally Posted by Ron99

+1 to what Steve said above. That info from Coral Sky may be slightly biased as they are obviously marketing a product without optics. As Steve said the cost of the optics is small and they help with concentrating the light so you get better PAR deeper in the tank.

As for the patent, I think all it needs is to be challenged in court and invalidated. I can't see how that patent was issued as they found nothing new or revolutionary or surprising that merits patentability. There was also a bunch of prior art that the patent examiners obviously didn't see. PFO was in financial difficulty before Orbitec went after them so they obviously didn't have the finances to fight it out in court. Hopefully somebody can do that at some point.

If optics are inexpensive why do you think a company would produce a fixture without them? They obviously have reason to believe that not having them provides some type of performance benefit. I believe the new Vertex LED fixture also lacks optics. So there are obviously some companies performing some R&D that leads them to believe LEDs without optics provides a performance, efficiency, or cost advantage. The application of LED technology is still in its infancy in this hobby. Over time I guess we'll see how things pan out. It wasn't that long ago that MH reflectors were designed with the intent of focusing the light and we got to a point where fixtures were producing fairly acute hot spots. Then reflector design transitioned to providing an even spread of light without hot spots.

[StirCrazy]

simple, they want to make more money.. using optice relates to more LEDs, the more LEDs they have to use the more expensive to build.

As for the patent, it was filed in tow parts in 2002 and 2003, and awarded in 2007

here it is

Overview
A method and apparatus of lighting a marine habitat for growth utilizing an LED light system. The light system includes an LED light source, a power supply for such light source and a controller for controlling the activation status and the intensity of the LED light source.

Claims
What is claimed is:

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.



As you can see any system built that is desirable to us would be infringing on the copyright.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this one.. a few guys had a good idea and jumped on it. it was tried with skimmers also but was filed to late.

No I don't think this company had any desire to build lights for fish tanks, but I do think they want some one else to and pay them royalties, or lease the right to make stuff from them. this way they can get money for nothing.

they will have this pattent untill 2027 but have to make utility payments at 4 years, 8 years and 12 years. if either of these are missed then the patent is open. so the earliest anyone would be able to sell a LED system is 2011 and only if they miss there payment, other wise we have to wait till 2015 and see if they make that one.

makes me wish I would have applied for this myself in 99 when I was playing with LEDs over tanks.

one other thing to note, in my reading I discovered there is no way around this patent by selling DIY kits in there entirity, and if you build them your self you are able to be sued by the company from infringment on there patent, but seeing as the cost of dammages they would get from one individual compared to what it would cost them to sue.. they wouldn't go after an individual.

Steve

[Ron99]

Sorry but I have to disagree. There is no invention in that patent. Aquarists have been using light sources to light reef tanks and grow corals for long before Orbitec came along. Jsut because a new type of light comes along does not mean that it is a novel invention to use that light for aquariums. Has anybody been able to patent LEDs as replacements for home light bulbs? If somebody invents a new type of light tomorrow; say a bioluminescent film of some sort should we patent that for use in aquariums? In order to patent there should be some invention. They would have to show that the LEDs surprisingly did something that other light sources don't for coral growth etc. and it does not look like they have done that. It is an inappropriately issued patent as far as I can tell and if challenged in court would likely be invalidated? Why have Orbitec not gone after Aquailluminations? They probably just smelled blood with PFO who were in financial difficulties due to poor products and returns and warranty claims etc. and are using that to try to scare others since they "defeated" PFO (pretty much financially rather then legally). That's my take on it anyhow. There is no invention in that patent as the use of LEDs for aquariums is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. It HAS to be non-obvious to be patentable.

In fact take a look at this old post at glassbox design; particularly the last part. perhaps we should get some people together and send a submission to the USPTO asking to have the patent invalidated.

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/pate...ults-recourse/

[Canadian]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Sorry but I have to disagree. There is no invention in that patent. Aquarists have been using light sources to light reef tanks and grow corals for long before Orbitec came along. Jsut because a new type of light comes along does not mean that it is a novel invention to use that light for aquariums. Has anybody been able to patent LEDs as replacements for home light bulbs? If somebody invents a new type of light tomorrow; say a bioluminescent film of some sort should we patent that for use in aquariums? In order to patent there should be some invention. They would have to show that the LEDs surprisingly did something that other light sources don't for coral growth etc. and it does not look like they have done that. It is an inappropriately issued patent as far as I can tell and if challenged in court would likely be invalidated? Why have Orbitec not gone after Aquailluminations? They probably just smelled blood with PFO who were in financial difficulties due to poor products and returns and warranty claims etc. and are using that to try to scare others since they "defeated" PFO (pretty much financially rather then legally). That's my take on it anyhow. There is no invention in that patent as the use of LEDs for aquariums is obvious to anyone skilled in the art. It HAS to be non-obvious to be patentable.

In fact take a look at this old post at glassbox design; particularly the last part. perhaps we should get some people together and send a submission to the USPTO asking to have the patent invalidated.

http://glassbox-design.com/2009/pate...ults-recourse/

They haven't gone after AI, from what I've read, because AI has "partnered" with them and is paying Orbitec a licensing fee. However, i can't verify the veracity of that statement.

[Ron99]

Originally Posted by Canadian

They haven't gone after AI, from what I've read, because AI has "partnered" with them and is paying Orbitec a licensing fee. However, i can't verify the veracity of that statement.

Looks like you are right. That's pathetic. This patent really needs to be invalidated. I have managed to find Orbitec's full patents (apparently there are two of them) and will have a look at them in the next day or two.

[StirCrazy]

Originally Posted by Ron99

Looks like you are right. That's pathetic. This patent really needs to be invalidated. I have managed to find Orbitec's full patents (apparently there are two of them) and will have a look at them in the next day or two.

Ron you don't have to invent something to have a patent. you can have a patent for specific ways of using pre exhisting products. which is what this one is. and all it has to be is an idea not the actual product. a computer is a good example. IBM patented there arcatexture.. so no one could make accesories for the IBM with out there permission. IBM didn't invent the chips, boards, ect.. but they did invent how to use them togeather in a specific way for a specific purpose.

there is nothing wrong with there patents, or PFO would have wone the lawsuit plane and simple.

it is like the wheel barrow.. the inventer was given a 50 year patent.. remember when you were a kid there was only one type of wheel barrow.. now theres like 50. the pattent ran out about 30 years ago if I remember corectly. even though man had been using buckets with wheels, platforms with wheels ect.. for 100's of years no one ever though to patent it.. one man did and for a long period of time was the only wheelbarrow manufactuer.. now you see pattents on wheel barrows like crazy but there for parts or uneque features or concepts.

trying to say a patent is invallid because all the parts are alreayd being used of have patents would mean there owuld be no patents issued on anything. if I came up with a new type of wave maker I would not be able to get a patent as all the electronics already have a patent. Heck no electronic manufacture at all would be able to patent anything.. just think of it as different types of patents. here is the def of a utility patent

" In general, a utility patent protects the way an invention is used and works. Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new and useful method, process, machine, device, manufactured item, or chemical compound - or any new and useful improvement to the same."

they invented a new and usefull machine.

Steve

[Ron99]

I am aware of how patents work as I have been involved in several and have read many more.

In order to patent something there does have to be some invention. You can get priority for an idea using the PPA (provisional patent application) which gives you a year to file your RPA (regular patent application. The RPA usually does have to have some supporting information to support your claims. To use your wheelbarrow analogy, I can't just say that the existing wheelbarrows are rectangular so I am going to patent an icosahedral wheelbarrow. I would have to describe or show how the icosahedral wheelbarrow is an improvement over the rectangular wheelbarrow. Also, if the icosahedral wheelbarrow would be an obvious application of wheelbarrow technology to anybody skilled in the art of wheelbarrows it would not be patentable.

Thus my opinion of Orbitec's patents. Using LEDs as light sources for aquariums is obvious. It is a natural evolution as new forms of lighting become viable. Just like CF, MH, T5HO, plasma lighting etc. As lighting improves or changes it gets adopted for aquarium use. Now they are trying to claim some spatial and spectral control that leads to better growth. So they should have shown exactly how that spatial and spectral control affects growth and is an advantage over other light sources etc. The patent is way to broad and if issued should have been for a specific set of wavelengths and time periods demonstrated to have an advantage over other set ups.

In any case, I am going to read the full patents when I have a chance in the next day or two and give you a summary then. But from first glance they are not accurate as they imply that other forms of lighting have not been used to promote growth in corals which is wrong. The problem is that patent examiners are usually not experts in the fields of the patents they are reviewing and rarely do the research necessary to understand and qualify the information in the patents. It goes both ways. We had a horror of a patent examiner once who didn't understand our patent, didn't understand the responses to her comments and held up our patent for a while because she was disinterested in doing her job properly and was completely wrong about her understanding of the technology. We finally had to complain to the USPTO about her conduct to get the patent issued.