LED lights

Ron99 · #1 02-03-2010, 03:50 AM

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 · #2 02-03-2010, 04:04 AM

Quote:

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 · #3 02-03-2010, 06:04 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 02-03-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 02-03-2010, 04:00 PM

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.

monocus · #6 02-03-2010, 06:39 PM

i have been looking into led lighting as well and i've found two places.for my nano i've found on ebay a do it yourself kit from waterkei-around $70.00 powered by a computer powerbox with different coloured leds and for my 220 gallon at alibaba complete led lighting at 150 ,250 and 350 watt.for two units of the 250s the price is $500 plus delivery and about $200 in brokerage fees

Ron99 · #7 02-03-2010, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monocus

i have been looking into led lighting as well and i've found two places.for my nano i've found on ebay a do it yourself kit from waterkei-around $70.00 powered by a computer powerbox with different coloured leds and for my 220 gallon at alibaba complete led lighting at 150 ,250 and 350 watt.for two units of the 250s the price is $500 plus delivery and about $200 in brokerage fees

Make sure you know what you are getting. The actual LED emitters used (brand, colour and wattage and optics or no optics) make all the difference. All the cheap LED fixtures I have seen, especially those out of China, would probably only be useful for fish only tanks or maybe low light softies at best.

The Eco-Lamps ones are a great example. I haven't looked at the newer KR92 series but after some emails to them about the KR91 series I found out that the emitters were o.5 watt chinese LEDs with no optics so there is no way you could keep anything but lower light demanding corals with it. They would definitely not support SPS. Don't get me wrong, the Eco-Lamps look really nice and probably well built but just know what you are getting in terms of light output vs. what you require in lighting for your livestock.

banditpowdercoat · #8 02-03-2010, 06:48 PM

Ya Alibaba doesnt care about patent's LOL

Ron99 · #9 02-03-2010, 06:42 PM

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. Again, using the wheelbarrow analogy, if I wanted to patent the use of wheelbarrows for something different such as being a mobile platform to stand on so I can reach up higher that use has to be a new one that it was not used for before (i.e, no prior art) and it has to be non-obvious so nobody had ever thought to move the wheelbarrow over to that wall and stand on it to reach the light fixture and change the lightbulb.

StirCrazy · #10 02-03-2010, 10:25 PM

Quote:

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