Re: Someone owns the patent on putting SMT LED's on a flexible PCB? How can it be?

On Jul 26, 6:54 am, Winfield <winfieldh...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David L. Jones wrote:
ferrari.secret.sa wrote:

Is the USPTO just issuing insane patents as the normal order of
business?

Yep! Plenty of examples have been posted in the past.

Check this patent out
http://www.google.com/patents?id=sCAKAAAAEBAJ&dq=6371637

Claim #1 means the patent holder has rights to any flexible PCB with
multiple LED's on it where the brightness is 2000mCD per sq-cm.

The patent was applied for in 2000 and granted in 2002.

How would that not be obvious to someone skilled in the prior art?

It is obvious. I've done it myself in a product.

I mean, flexible PCB substrates have been around for years. SMT
LED's have been too. So the simple act of putting the two together
is patent-able?

It's more than just putting the two together, if that was the case
then that would be the only claim.
Getting a patent granted does not mean it's innovative, has not been
done before, or would stand up to any type of challenge.

I dont understand how the examiner would allow such a patent to be
issued.

They aren't very bright...

I would think there would have been numerous devices that
were being sold for plenty of years prior to the patent filing that
violated the first claim. Short of paying the contention fee to get
it re-examined, is there nothing that can be done?

Yep, ignore it.
The only thing a patent gives you is the right to attempt to sue
someone if they copy it. That takes squillions of dollars, and unless
you copied every one of the claims in exact detail, they would be
wasting their money pursuing you.

Sadly, that's not so. If you violate the first claim all by itself,
but
not the modifying claims, you're still vulnerable. Here's the claim:

1. A flexible, low profile lighting system, comprising:

a flexible printed circuit board substrate, the substrate adapted
to
support and electrically interconnect surface mount electronic
components,
the printed circuit board substrate flexible through at least two axes
of
rotation;
a plurality of surface mount light emitting diodes; and
wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes are surface mounted
on
the flexible printed circuit board substrate, so as to define a
conformably
bendable lighting array configured for mounting upon surfaces with
compound
curvature substrate, the array outputting a uniform light intensity of
at
least 2000 millicandles per square centimeter.

I agree, another bad patent for my "bad patents" folder.

Yes you are absolutely right - all one needs to do is violate ANY of
the claims to be infringing. So if ANYONE makes a flexible PCB with
LED's on it with a brightness of 2000mCD/sq-cm they are violating this
patent.

That is an utterly insane thing to grant a patent on. It hampers
innovation and gives way waaay too much breadth to the patent holder.

Isnt there some kind of oversight of the PTO? The fact that it
explicitly states 200mcd or more leads me to believe that they knew
other devices of less-than 2000mcd already existed. So basically the
examiner thought that the applicant was doing something novel and un-
obvious just by doing whats been done, but at greater than 2000mcd?

Just crazy! What can be done? This patent affects a project I am
working on. Likely I would never be sued, but what if I were? Is
there no way to honestly fight it without waiting to get sued?

.

Relevant Pages