(Topic ID: 81341)
Pikeville, KY
Quoted from DCFAN:What? Prior art is what is used to reject a patent application. If it is prior art it is admissible regardless of whether the application was filed under the new or old rules/laws.
That "First to file law" is for applications that are filed on or after March 16, 2013. This Stern application falls under the old rules.
This patent may not be effected by the new First to File laws if it was filled before the law changes. But, First to File means exactly that - showing prior art was part of the old system used to establish the First to Invent basis. It is no longer relevant.
Quoted from RacerRik:This patent may not be effected by the new First to File laws if it was filled before the law changes. But, First to File means exactly that - showing prior art was part of the old system used to establish the First to Invent basis. It is no longer relevant.
Prior art (old patents, publications, etc.) is what is used to reject a patent claim. Prior art still is used in the new rules/laws.
The new rules are not first to file and then you are automatically granted a patent. First to file only means that you are considered the inventor and that your claims will be examined as compared to the prior art to decide whether a patent is granted.
Without prior art to apply to rejections there would be about 8000 patent examiners without jobs.
Maybe it is just Stern doing what normal companies do, with a side order of doing Steve and Lyman a solid. Being named on patents is pretty cool, IMO.
Or maybe the three entities mentioned in the application (Stern, Ritchie, and Sheets) form the three points of a triangle, further proof of the illuminati involvement in pinball.
tumblr_inline_mk8hpws5X21qz4rgp.jpgSo, do you have some actual experience with this or is this an opinion? I ask, because I filled for a patent in 2013 with the help of several patent attorneys and their explanation to me does not agree with what you are saying. By the way, Prior Art is way more than just old patents. Sure a patent would be rejected if the invention was already covered by an existing patent. The Prior Art I am referring to is drawings, pictures or even built models whether prototype or sold in production. The way the lawyers explained it to me, if Stern had been using magnets in pinballs for 20 years but never patented it, I could take the idea, wrap it in some words that claimed I was the inventor and I could patent that invention.
Quoted from RacerRik:So, do you have some actual experience with this or is this an opinion? I ask, because I filled for a patent in 2013 with the help of several patent attorneys and their explanation to me does not agree with what you are saying.
Yes, I work in intellectual property.
I'm going to patent breathing, you guys better pay up.
What a sad state of affairs when "competition" turns into paper shuffling.
Quoted from DCFAN:The patent examiner will need prior art that beats the August 2012 filing date. Nobody in the thread has shown that prior art yet, but that does not mean the patent office will not find a reason to reject.
There is plenty of prior art including the introduction and showing and playing and explanation of our game live and recorded for worldwide media at E3 in the Dynamics Booth in June of 2012.....
Quoted from JerseyJack:There is plenty of prior art including the introduction and showing and playing and explanation of our game lie and recorded for worldwide media at E3 in the Dynamics Booth in June of 2012.....
Interesting.
Quoted from DCFAN:Interesting.
We then drove the game to the Seattle Pinball Show where it was further played, displayed, explained on video by Keith and then placed in the PinGame Journal Booth sitting right next to an admiring Steve Ritchie for the entire weekend.....
Quoted from Wolfmarsh:Or maybe the three entities mentioned in the application (Stern, Ritchie, and Sheets) form the three points of a triangle, further proof of the illuminati involvement in pinball.
Welp, it does say NOVUS...
Enfield, NS
Quoted from Crash:Welp, it does say NOVUS...
Mind blown, LOL. 
the-da-vinci-code-5055ebda55a03 (Small).jpgQuoted from TigerLaw:Yes, this is a good restart on an interesting topic worthy of some discussion. Hopefully some of the lawyers with patent experience will weigh in for us. We will monitor this thread closely gang, so please try to keep things civil.
I agree a worthy discussion.
I'm still working on how to quote others properly...
Quoted from Azmodeus:I agree a worthy discussion.
I'm still working on how to quote others properly...
You click on the quote button for the post that you want to quote. Then you type outside of that quote for your text. It looks like you got it.
Quoted from PinballHelp:Since when is using RGB LEDs to "generally illuminate" something an "invention?"
Perhaps I should apply for a patent for, "The use of a battery-powered portable light device to illuminate the rear portion of my closet?"
Awesome
Since somebody asked in PM here's my quick look around for prior art. I'm sure there are other people here who posted or read about ways of using RGB LEDs prior to this application, what else can we find?
Google homebrew-pinball group by me on 2/27/08:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/homebrew-pinball/rgb/homebrew-pinball/T7g54aCZM_U/2w93_PAo6hkJ
"I think probably four pop bumper outputs and inputs, plus support for 4x3 lamps for pulse width controlled RGB leds in each. "
(Unfortunately it looks like most of the follow-up about RGB lighting on this was over email.)
The blog of homebrew pinball developer Fernando Cucci from 3/12/2009:
http://castlevaniapinball.blogspot.com/2009/03/artwork-2.html
"Game Feature - Stage Lighting
Unlike current pinball machines which use all white incandescents, my machine will use RGB leds for the general illumination. This grants me the ability to 'set the mood' for the table. For instance, each stage will have a specific color: Entrance=Light Green; Library=Brown; Catacombs=Dark Green; Clock Tower=Light Blue; Boss battles will strobe from Dark Red to Dark Violet, etc. No other pinball machine has ever done this before."
My public website (also linked from the Classic Playfields site) on or before 1/16/2011: http://web.archive.org/web/20110116220447/http://www.nuprometheus.com/frank/frank.html (This is the Internet Archive version stored on that date)
"One feature of the playfield that actually is cutting edge will be the extensive use of color controlled rgb LEDs which will be used to combine shots into custom modes during play."
Quoted from ecurtz:I'm not a patent lawyer (as a software guy I loathe what the patent system has become) but if anyone is looking for prior art to bust this we were certainly discussing using RGB LEDs in the homebrew pinball dev. group in 2010.
The Wayback Machine confirms this quote from the website for my machine has been up since January 2011: "One feature of the playfield that actually is cutting edge will be the extensive use of color controlled rgb LEDs which will be used to combine shots into custom modes during play."
Their patent is for anything "coin op". I'm pretty sure that Bally/WMS has been using RGB LEDS in their gaming equipment for years. I'd bet some of the WMS slot machines bust their claims too.
Quoted from PinballHelp:I'm pretty sure that Bally/WMS has been using RGB LEDS in their gaming equipment for years.
Gosh that is for sure. IGT, WMS, Bally's, Kanomi, etc. have lighting and glass technology so much more advanced than what is in the pinball industry it is ridiculous. WMS, for example, has transparent glass that looks like a window and then can fill it will HD imaging. Just think of the potential that would have for pinball glass!!!
Quoted from TigerLaw:Gosh that is for sure. IGT, WMS, Bally's, Kanomi, etc. have lighting and glass technology so much more advanced than what is in the pinball industry it is ridiculous. WMS, for example, has transparent glass that looks like a window and then can fill it will HD imaging. Just think of the potential that would have for pinball glass!!!
Yea, I saw that and it blew me away... What's interesting is, that "transparent LED" technology was the result of them having to work around a patent that IGT had on digital score reels -- I don't remember the exact details but one of the companies had the patent on digitzed reels, so the other company had to use analog reels and put digital imagery around the reels.
1. Is their a patent? 2. Is said patent being violated? It doesn't matter what other companies are doing or have produced. I was in a case with Honeywell and GM. Honeywell went after GM for infringement of their patent. You can Navigate using the Stars, Loran, plain map, looking out a window but the only thing that mattered is Honeywell holds rights to GPS Navigation and made a valid claim against GM and how they Navigate using GPS. Stern or Lyman,SRP can just sit and wait, if they feel they have a valid claim make one. If I was JJP I'd get cousel ASAP. I guess it makes sense why SRP touts the color changing LED and how they were first!!! It matters!! 
Quoted from 2RustyBalls:Stern or Lyman,SRP can just sit and wait, if they feel they have a valid claim make one. If I was JJP I'd get cousel ASAP. I guess it makes sense why SRP touts the color changing LED and how they were first!!! It matters!!
You must not have read the rest of the thread, and in particular the previous 5 posts before you.
Unknown
Quoted from TigerLaw:Gosh that is for sure. IGT, WMS, Bally's, Kanomi, etc. have lighting and glass technology so much more advanced than what is in the pinball industry it is ridiculous. WMS, for example, has transparent glass that looks like a window and then can fill it will HD imaging. Just think of the potential that would have for pinball glass!!!
Heighway Pinball was planning on using LCD glass on their first pin, seen in prototype form here:
Their plans have changed, but I believe this technology is still on their wishlist for a future pin.
Not sure why people are getting so worked up over an application. Even if approved (by no means a slam dunk), it's a very long process.
Sana'a
Quoted from vid1900:Tangas actually, but you know what I mean.
300px-Panties_styles_-_en.svg.pn... 40 KB
I always thought you were more of a bikini briefs kind of guy vid. 
Quoted from DCFAN:You must not have read the rest of the thread, and in particular the previous 5 posts before you.
Thats ok...
Let legal Counsel take care of the issues don't worry about it. Stern feels they have a invention and it deserves to be protected with a Patent. Good for Stern or whomever. Why is it the WOZ guys get all worked up every time it's obvious JJP isn't the smartest guy in the room?
Quoted from PinballHelp:Jersey Jack likely has prior art and can prove they were using RGB LEDs in GI before Stern. Plus I'm sure there are other people like Gerry Stellenburg of Metamorphic who might have even earlier examples.
I've worked on patent cases before. I helped Amazon invalidate a patent that someone else brought to bear against them for online surveys and shopping cart systems. Amazon wasn't the first, but they knew the people who held the patent weren't either. Their legal team found some code I wrote in the early 90s that pre-dated the patent and that blew out the other guy's IP claim.
Prior art, notebooks, talked about, etc. don't matter anymore. It is first to file period. This changed about 2 years ago because of all the court litigation leading up to who own's what. I am on the patent committee at work. This is a good one if they get it.
Quoted from Classic_Stern:Prior art, notebooks, talked about, etc. don't matter anymore. It is first to file period. This changed about 2 years ago because of all the court litigation leading up to who own's what. I am on the patent committee at work. This is a good one if they get it.
The other issue is if they shipped product with the patent before it was filed. That would invalidate.
Quoted from alichino:It doesn't really matter if their first game already came out or not. If they can prove they were playing around with it before Stern filed the patent, they're fine. If some random guy can prove they were working on it in their garage five years ago with pipe dreams of making a pinball machine, that guy would also be able to use the color changing LEDs in a pinball machine.
It does matter if Stern shipped a game before they filed the patent. That would invalidate it.
This is probably one of those things where we really don't know what any company might have as far as prior art. I know where I work there are things in the wings as much as 10 years before the first word of it is announced. The announcement of ACDC's addressable led's is just the first known public reveal which has nothing to do with just when the idea was first thought of and by who and at what point you can prove on paper the idea first came to light. I think it's safe to say that when this type of LED started to hit the market just about anyone making or thinking of making pinball machines had this thought so realistically everyone started around the same time making the argument of prior art moot really. Then it becomes a matter of who's smart enough to file for the patent first.
Quoted from Classic_Stern:Prior art, notebooks, talked about, etc. don't matter anymore. It is first to file period. This changed about 2 years ago because of all the court litigation leading up to who own's what. I am on the patent committee at work. This is a good one if they get it.
If the prior art teaches what is in the application then it certainly does matter. The "First to File" is all about who would have the rights to a patent if one were to be issued. The Prior art is still assessed by the examiner to examine the claims and decide whether to reject or allow.
Quoted from Classic_Stern:It does matter if Stern shipped a game before they filed the patent. That would invalidate it.
That is incorrect. They have a year from first disclosure to file the application. After a year it is a statutory bar meaning no patent could be issued since the public disclosure would be prior art that cannot be overcome.
Quoted from DCFAN:This application is from August 2012 (ACDC), well before Star Trek.
DCFAN,
Where did you see that this was from 2012. The link to the patent application says Feb 6, 2014 so it will clearly fall under the First To File laws. Perhaps Stern is taking advantage of the changes in the patent laws - go in and patent everything in pinball that is not already patented. They don't have to prove themselves to be the inventor.
Quoted from 2RustyBalls:Thats ok...
Let legal Counsel take care of the issues don't worry about it. Stern feels they have a invention and it deserves to be protected with a Patent. Good for Stern or whomever. Why is it the WOZ guys get all worked up every time it's obvious JJP isn't the smartest guy in the room?
Stern also thought that single color LEDs in a pinball machine deserved a patent back in 2008 and filed an application but that was abandoned a couple years later.
Quoted from RacerRik:DCFAN,
Where did you see that this was from 2012. The link to the patent application says Feb 6, 2014 so it will clearly fall under the First To File laws. Perhaps Stern is taking advantage of the changes in the patent laws - go in and patent everything in pinball that is not already patented. They don't have to prove themselves to be the inventor.
Feb. 2014 is the publication of the application. Applications are published 18 months after the filing date. 2012 applications are under the old law/rules.
Quoted from RacerRik:DCFAN,
Where did you see that this was from 2012. The link to the patent application says Feb 6, 2014 so it will clearly fall under the First To File laws. Perhaps Stern is taking advantage of the changes in the patent laws - go in and patent everything in pinball that is not already patented. They don't have to prove themselves to be the inventor.
Look up the patent app in uspto.. it was filed in 2012.
Quoted from DCFAN:That is incorrect. They have a year from first disclosure to file the application. After a year it is a statutory bar meaning no patent could be issued since the public disclosure would be prior art that cannot be overcome.
Yea, I realized that after I wrote it. You are correct. It is 1 year. That is why at work we file at least a year out to avoid this problem.
Quoted from DCFAN:If the prior art teaches what is in the application then it certainly does matter. The "First to File" is all about who would have the rights to a patent if one were to be issued. The Prior art is still assessed by the examiner to examine the claims and decide whether to reject or allow.
We use First to File as the standard at work. Agree prior art is assessed but in most cases FTF will have the upper hand. We stopped all of the documentation, prior art arguments and strategies because it was not getting the results with the amount of litigation. At least that has been our case for the last 3 years since I have been on our patent committee.
Quoted from vid1900:Tangas actually, but you know what I mean.
Pics, or it didn't happen. 
I'm thinking that IP in the pinball arena really isn't going to gain any kind of solid footing. It seems to me that the possibilities of a "workaround" is going to be there in just about every case and this isn't Samsung versus Apple where the $$$ are limitless for legal fees and judgment awards.
The potential damages in a "violation" would seem to me to be hard to quantify and may be nominal in most cases. The money to both prosecute and defend might become too much. I just don't see it.
They will probably go at each other, sometimes prosecute, sometimes defend, sometimes abandon and mostly just "workaround".
After all, if the IP was so lucrative and valuable, Bally/Williams would still be making pinball machines.
Reply
Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.
Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!
Donate to PinsideGreat to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!
