Looking for LED Aquarium Lighting Prior Art

Kengar · 03/18/2009, 10:32 PM

Folks,

I am looking into the LED patent matter. In this regard, it would be helpful for me to obtain as much public information as possible from the 2003 and before time period regarding using LEDs to light aquaria. Particularly useful would be anything before December 15, 2002, but up to December 15, 2003 would also be useful.

I do not need information re use of LEDs for simple moonlighting, or color accents. What I do need most particularly is information referring to tweaking the output to hit the coral growth "sweet spots", more particularly from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; and varying the intensity of the LEDs (beyond just simple on/off). Also useful, though I don't think essential, would be something suggesting that even though LED's run cooler than, say, halides, they still put out some heat and that that heat should be dissipated (e.g., by fan, heat sink, etc.). I have some good stuff already, but would prefer to have more.

If you would like to help, please search other boards on which you participate, including your own local aquarium club bulletin boards, and post a link to this request there, too, so others might assist. Please send links to relevant postings to me at kmf@km***in.com

Thank you for your assistance.

(Moderators: I hope this request is permissible; if not, I do apologize. Thanks! Ken)

widmer · 03/18/2009, 10:57 PM

And what are you effectively trying to accomplish by finding evidence of prior art?

Kengar · 03/18/2009, 10:59 PM

someone needs to slay the dragon. . . . .

aninjaatemyshoe · 03/18/2009, 11:56 PM

Are you involved with the Orbitec vs. PFO case? We're not going to be deposed if we provide anything are we?

VacavilleFC3S · 03/19/2009, 05:10 AM

pfft 02-03 leds were garbage and i really doubt anywhere near the heat output of MH, and it's not that the heat should "should" be dissipated but it's 100% neccessary for any high output LED to be heatsunk or it would fry in a matter of seconds.

Kengar · 03/19/2009, 06:37 AM

Yes, this relates to the patent involved in the Orbitec/PFO case, but no, I am not involved with the case. I have not been retained by anyone yet; I am doing some intitial groundwork here.

There is a process called reexamination, according to which the validity of an issued patent can be challenged back in the Patent Office (as opposed to in court via litigation) if you present prior art to the Office that raises a substantial new question of patentability. You will not be deposed, since there is no court or lawsuit involved with this process. It is strictly me looking for information with which a challenge could be mounted.

Kengar · 03/19/2009, 07:20 PM

bump

salty joe · 03/19/2009, 08:41 PM

I hope you find what you're looking for. I can understand a patent on a new type of light. But a patent to illuminate a Marine aquarium with a certain type of light seems ridiculous. Maybe I can get a patent on LED lights to illuminate my bedroom.

If you can prove that using LED lighting for a Marine aquarium was discussed before 2002, could that be enough to force a re-examination?

Kengar · 03/20/2009, 06:26 AM

Thanks for the interst, SJ. It needs to be more specific than that. The Examiner was aware of that general concept.

Kengar · 03/20/2009, 06:27 AM

Thanks for the interst, SJ. It needs to be more specific than that. The Examiner was aware of that general concept while the application that led to the patent was being considered.

Kengar · 03/21/2009, 07:28 AM

bump

Kengar · 03/24/2009, 07:03 AM

bump

03/18/2009, 10:32 PM	#1
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	Looking for LED Aquarium Lighting Prior Art Folks, I am looking into the LED patent matter. In this regard, it would be helpful for me to obtain as much public information as possible from the 2003 and before time period regarding using LEDs to light aquaria. Particularly useful would be anything before December 15, 2002, but up to December 15, 2003 would also be useful. I do not need information re use of LEDs for simple moonlighting, or color accents. What I do need most particularly is information referring to tweaking the output to hit the coral growth "sweet spots", more particularly from about 380 nm to about 690 nm; and varying the intensity of the LEDs (beyond just simple on/off). Also useful, though I don't think essential, would be something suggesting that even though LED's run cooler than, say, halides, they still put out some heat and that that heat should be dissipated (e.g., by fan, heat sink, etc.). I have some good stuff already, but would prefer to have more. If you would like to help, please search other boards on which you participate, including your own local aquarium club bulletin boards, and post a link to this request there, too, so others might assist. Please send links to relevant postings to me at kmf@km**in.com Thank you for your assistance. (Moderators: I hope this request is permissible; if not, I do apologize. Thanks! Ken) Last edited by Kengar; 03/18/2009 at 10:38 PM.*

03/18/2009, 10:59 PM	#3
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	someone needs to slay the dragon. . . . . __________________ Resident Patent Attorney

03/18/2009, 11:56 PM	#4
aninjaatemyshoe Registered Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Posts: 2,333	Are you involved with the Orbitec vs. PFO case? We're not going to be deposed if we provide anything are we? __________________ You are not brought upon this world to "get it"

03/19/2009, 06:37 AM	#6
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	Yes, this relates to the patent involved in the Orbitec/PFO case, but no, I am not involved with the case. I have not been retained by anyone yet; I am doing some intitial groundwork here. There is a process called reexamination, according to which the validity of an issued patent can be challenged back in the Patent Office (as opposed to in court via litigation) if you present prior art to the Office that raises a substantial new question of patentability. You will not be deposed, since there is no court or lawsuit involved with this process. It is strictly me looking for information with which a challenge could be mounted. __________________ Resident Patent Attorney

03/19/2009, 07:20 PM	#7
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	bump __________________ Resident Patent Attorney

03/18/2009, 10:57 PM	#2
widmer Drug Enthusiast Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rochester, MN Posts: 2,958	And what are you effectively trying to accomplish by finding evidence of prior art?

03/19/2009, 05:10 AM	#5
VacavilleFC3S Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vacaville California Posts: 2,613	pfft 02-03 leds were garbage and i really doubt anywhere near the heat output of MH, and it's not that the heat should "should" be dissipated but it's 100% neccessary for any high output LED to be heatsunk or it would fry in a matter of seconds.

03/19/2009, 08:41 PM	#8
salty joe Registered Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: medina, ohio Posts: 2,419	I hope you find what you're looking for. I can understand a patent on a new type of light. But a patent to illuminate a Marine aquarium with a certain type of light seems ridiculous. Maybe I can get a patent on LED lights to illuminate my bedroom. If you can prove that using LED lighting for a Marine aquarium was discussed before 2002, could that be enough to force a re-examination? __________________ Time to roll the dice.

03/20/2009, 06:26 AM	#9
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	Thanks for the interst, SJ. It needs to be more specific than that. The Examiner was aware of that general concept. __________________ Resident Patent Attorney

03/20/2009, 06:27 AM	#10
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	Thanks for the interst, SJ. It needs to be more specific than that. The Examiner was aware of that general concept while the application that led to the patent was being considered. __________________ Resident Patent Attorney

03/21/2009, 07:28 AM	#11
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	bump __________________ Resident Patent Attorney

03/24/2009, 07:03 AM	#12
Kengar Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Gaithersburg, MD (D.C. Metro Area) Posts: 1,970	bump __________________ Resident Patent Attorney