Hey, Win! CCFL Inverter "self-learning" resonant frequency?

[Fred Bartoli]

Sort of. It's a discharge lamp, which could become an
actual arc if the current was allowed to rise too high.

I meant, no only that's prior art wrt the "self learning inverter", but it
also can be viewed as applicated to lighting with just the right amount of
twisting. This could make the basis of a funny argument in court

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:24:07 -0800, "Walter Harley"

[snip]

In other words: they've patented the idea of putting something small into an
enclosure, so that it fits a bigger existing hole.

Is it conceivable that solving this problem took an engineer more than 30 or
40 seconds of careful thought? Is it even conceivable that anyone could
come up with a more obvious solution to the problem?

I suppose now if I patent the idea of stuffing Kleenex into the end of
hand-me-down shoes to make them fit, I'll have to cite this patent as prior
art.

In court (or more likely, before an arbitration panel) the test is:
Would this be obvious to an engineer "trained in the art"?

If so, it's not patentable. That's how most are beaten.

I knocked off one last summer simply by hauling out a 50 year old
textbook ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

In that case perhaps look at the spark gap transmitters
developed by Marconi or Poulsen. AFAIR they used the negative
resistance of an arc in association with a self-tuned LC tank.

Excellent!

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

Plus a spark gap arc is a kind of CCFL, no?

Yep ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Jim Thompson]

[email protected] wrote...

The immediate issue isn't to find a workaround, it's to find
a way to invalidate a patent whose owners assert infringement
by products using their patented scheme. Sadly, despite even
good evidence of obviousness, it's very hard to get a jury to
overturn a patent that enjoys a good presumption of validity,
having passed careful review by patent examiners --- Who are
amateur jurors to overturn a patent professional? To succeed
one has to find something serous, like real evidence of fraud
(applicant intentionally didn't mention significant prior art),
or gross incompetence (the examiner failed to find or respect
significant prior art), that forces the jury to feel compelled
to over-rule the examiner.

In other words, one must find EXACT instances of prior art.

Either that, or the expert witness and defense lawyer (and his
entire team) need to have *extraordinary* skill with the jury,
so the jury feels the patent owner is a skank, and are looking
for good excuses to do the right thing as citizens, and overturn
his patent. That doesn't happen very often.

I've been once before a judge, and before numerous arbitration panels
(usually three engineer/lawyer types)... never before a jury.

I can't imagine how one would explain technology to Joe Average.

It's difficult enough here in S.E.D ;-)

...Jim Thompson

 

[Keith Williams]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:24:07 -0800, "Walter Harley"

[snip]

In other words: they've patented the idea of putting something small into an
enclosure, so that it fits a bigger existing hole.

Is it conceivable that solving this problem took an engineer more than 30 or
40 seconds of careful thought? Is it even conceivable that anyone could
come up with a more obvious solution to the problem?

I suppose now if I patent the idea of stuffing Kleenex into the end of
hand-me-down shoes to make them fit, I'll have to cite this patent as prior
art.

In court (or more likely, before an arbitration panel) the test is:
Would this be obvious to an engineer "trained in the art"?

If so, it's not patentable. That's how most are beaten.

That's a tough one, since once you've seen a lot of gadgets they
look "obvious".

I knocked off one last summer simply by hauling out a 50 year old
textbook ;-)

That's more like prior art, rather than the "obvious" argument, no?

 

[[email protected]]

up with a circuit that wasn't on one of their college homework assignments
figures it ought to be patentable and the business people running many
companies will do nothing but encourage them to do so -- prior art be damned.

BE QUIET! If I can patent the idea of using two resistors as a voltage
divider, my employer will hand me a $2,000 cash bonus, no questions
asked. There is no limit on the number of these bonuses that can be
collected per year. In fact, it's the only way one can get an effective
raise greater than 10%.

 

[Fred Bartoli]

Excellent!

Well in the same vein, have a look at how clocks work

I bet you can get as far as the first sustained oscillator was invented.

 

[Rich Grise]

Yep ;-)

But-but - where's the "fluorescent" part? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Joerg]

Hello Jim,

Thanks, Joerg! That's the kind of lead I'm looking for... really old
prior art.

In case you have to convince a jury really old prior art may not be so
powerful. But there ought to be lots of newer stuff that at least some
jurors would likely have been using a long time ago. I remember that
when I was a kid I repaired a few inverters for travel trailers. From
the days when fluorescents came only for mains voltage but you had to
run them off the trailer or car battery. Some of these inverters were
saturation controlled, others were resonant schemes and those might fit
into this case. This had been in Europe but one of the US models was
made by Trippe Mfg. Co. in Chicago.

I'm seeing an awful lot of issued patents these days that would
indicate that the examiners aren't doing proper prior art searches...
issuing patents on stuff us old farts knew about when we were kids ;-)

As other have said, often employers are enticing their EE staff to
patent as much as they can. Then there are the poor lads who think that
a patent, any patent, is a ticket to riches. After they have blown a few
thousand for progressive maintenance fees and maybe $10k or so on
attorney filing help they often realize that it was hot air.

Regards, Joerg

 

[Joerg]

Hello Jim,

I've been once before a judge, and before numerous arbitration panels
(usually three engineer/lawyer types)... never before a jury.

I can't imagine how one would explain technology to Joe Average.

You can but you need a physical example and then explain how it works
without exceeding 8-10th grade level physics and math. As long as some
of the jurors understand it and consequently develop serious doubt about
the patent in question. Done it many times, usually to bankers with
almost zero technical background.

It's difficult enough here in S.E.D ;-)

ROFL!

Regards, Joerg

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote...

The immediate issue isn't to find a workaround, it's to find
a way to invalidate a patent whose owners assert infringement
by products using their patented scheme.

The prior art - the Jim Williams application notes - describe a system
that self-oscillates at the resonant frequency of the transformer. The
step to a system that actively determines the resonant frequency and
drives the transformer at that frequency strikes me as obvious to those
skilled in the art.

Sadly, despite even
good evidence of obviousness, it's very hard to get a jury to
overturn a patent that enjoys a good presumption of validity,
having passed careful review by patent examiners --- Who are
amateur jurors to overturn a patent professional? To succeed
one has to find something serous, like real evidence of fraud
(applicant intentionally didn't mention significant prior art),
or gross incompetence (the examiner failed to find or respect
significant prior art), that forces the jury to feel compelled
to over-rule the examiner.

Judges are also perfectly capable of being stupid. EMI in England
invented modern television a few months before RCA in the U.S.A. which
lead to a monster court case, in which a U.S. judge let himself be
persuaded by RCA that quadrature moduation was different from sin/cos
modulation. One my friends in England was involved in the case when he
was very young, which has contributed to his very cynical approach to
patent law.

In other words, one must find EXACT instances of prior art.

Either that, or the expert witness and defense lawyer (and his
entire team) need to have *extraordinary* skill with the jury,
so the jury feels the patent owner is a skank, and are looking
for good excuses to do the right thing as citizens, and overturn
his patent. That doesn't happen very often.

Most patent cases don't come to court. The one time I was involved, my
employer spent more money on lawyers while deciding not to fight the
case than they spent on the development work tat had provoked the writ.
They'd originally had counsel's opinion that the patent involved wasn't
strong enough to justify a court case, but the counsel onvolved changed
his mind when he saw the inventor's writ.

 

[Tony Williams]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:08:53 +0000 (GMT), Tony Williams

Excellent!

Systems which optimise power transfer, by deliberately
adjusting the frequency such that the voltage and current
are in phase have been around for many years. In fact Speff
was muttering here (a few years ago) about a patented
electromechanical hopper feed system which did exactly
that.