(Topic ID: 81341)

Stern trying to drop a bombshell? New Patent Application for color changing LEDs

By DCFAN

10 years ago


Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats

  • 99 posts
  • 49 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 10 years ago by iceman44
  • Topic is favorited by 1 Pinsider

You

Linked Games

No games have been linked to this topic.

    Topic Gallery

    View topic image gallery

    300px-Panties_styles_-_en.svg.png
    the-da-vinci-code-5055ebda55a03 (Small).jpg
    tumblr_inline_mk8hpws5X21qz4rgp.jpg

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider dcfan.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    #1 10 years ago

    I am starting this new thread to replace the one that got sidetracked with personal attacks:

    http://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/stern-trying-to-drop-a-bombshell

    I am sure the mods can ban anyone that gets too personal this time now that everyone has been warned.

    Patent application title: COIN OPERATED GAME DEVICE USING LEDS TO PROVIDE GENERAL ILLUMINATION
    Inventors: Steve Ritchie (Lombard, IL, US) Lyman Sheats (Hoffman Estates, IL, US)
    Assignees: STERN PINBALL, INC.

    Publication date: 2014-02-06
    Patent application number: 20140035227

    Abstract:

    A coin operated amusement game such as a pinball machine having a playing surface wherein tri-colored LEDs are provided to illuminate the game playing surface.
    Claims:

    1. A coin operated amusement game, comprising: a playfield including a plurality of features which are utilized to define play of the coin operated amusement game; and a plurality of tri-colored LEDs positioned in cooperation with the playfield to illuminate a playing surface of the playfield in a one of a plurality of different colors.

    http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140035227

    #3 10 years ago
    Quoted from DocRotCod:

    Didn't they use these in Star Trek?

    This application is from August 2012 (ACDC), well before Star Trek.

    #19 10 years ago
    Quoted from frolic:

    You can't patent something that is already released and out there, even if you created it. This is going nowhere.

    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.

    -1
    #21 10 years ago
    Quoted from PinballHelp:

    The patent is probably not legitimate, but it will cost pinball companies a bunch of money in legal fees to prove it.. money that could be spent on something more fun and beneficial to the community.

    It is not a patent, it is an application for a patent. It still must be examined and rejected or allowed.
    The other pinball companies really don't have to do anything unless it becomes a patent. One thing the othe pinball companies can and probably should do is a third party submission of prior art with explanations as to why the claims are not patentable.

    #25 10 years ago
    Quoted from ChadH:

    I don't think this patent is simply for the use of multicolored LEDs in a game... I think this is about the coordination of the different colors with the gameplay/modes/music.
    I am not sure why DCFAN only pasted in Claim 1 of the patent in the original post. He should have pasted all 6 claims in to better document what this patent is about.
    Please click the patent link in the original post of this thread and read it for yourself.

    Here is the full set of claims which I posted in the original thread:

    1. A coin operated amusement game, comprising: a playfield including a plurality of features which are utilized to define play of the coin operated amusement game; and a plurality of tri-colored LEDs positioned in cooperation with the playfield to illuminate a playing surface of the playfield in a one of a plurality of different colors.

    2. The coin operated amusement game of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tri-colored LEDs are positioned below the playing surface of the playfield.

    3. The coin operated amusement game of claim 1, wherein the plurality of tri-colored LEDs are positioned above the playing surface of the playfield.

    4. The coin operated amusement game of claim 1, wherein the one of the plurality of different colors in which the playing surface of the playfield is illuminated corresponds to a one of a plurality of different game play modes of the coin operated amusement game.

    5. The coin operated amusement game of claim 1, wherein the one of the plurality of different colors in which the playing surface of the playfield is illuminated corresponds to a one of a plurality of songs that will be played during game play of the coin operated amusement game.

    6. The coin operated amusement game as recited in claim 1, wherein the playfield comprises an inclined playfield of a pinball machine.

    Read more: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20140035227#ixzz2tjOwUcPm

    The broadest claims are the one's that the patent applicant's covet the most, but what they really should want are truly legitimate allowed patent claims.

    #34 10 years ago
    Quoted from RacerRik:

    You guys must not be aware of the new patent reform in the US. Prior art is no longer admissible. The new patent law states that who applies for a patent 1st will get the patent if it is approved.

    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.

    #36 10 years ago
    Quoted from notaflyingtoy:

    Applying for a patent shouldn't be construed as "trying to drop a bombshell" even when excluding five of the six claims of said patent.

    Just an example and I am not saying it will happen, but it would be a bombshell in effect if controlled RGB LEDs were allowed in a broad sense in the patent. Then JJP could be financially hurt because Stern could ask for huge damages for all the WOZ made.

    #39 10 years ago
    Quoted from swf127:

    For the application to be approved, the item or process must be deemed to be novel. If I looked into my cracked crystal ball, I would expect the application to be approved unless someone like JJP submits prior art. Once it's approved, the other players will come out of the woodwork and challenge it.
    It makes total sense for Stern to do this just as it makes total sense for JJP or whomever to challenge it. You can't blame Gary for trying to eat Jack's lunch. There's no down side for Stern no matter how this plays out.

    I don't have the numbers, but most applications are rejected on the first action by the examiner. The claims can be amended after that.

    #43 10 years ago
    Quoted from jetspeedb:

    You got that right. The downside would end all on us.

    ^You quoted the wrong person.

    #45 10 years ago
    Quoted from TigerLaw:

    Edited for you.

    Thanks.

    #54 10 years ago
    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.

    #57 10 years ago
    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.

    #60 10 years ago
    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.

    #61 10 years ago

    It looks like ACDC Prem/LE with tri-colored controlled lights detailed in the flyer was announced around March 8, 2012.

    http://www.pinballnews.com/games/acdc/index10.html

    #69 10 years ago
    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.

    #72 10 years ago

    The 2nd and 3rd references have interesting dates and content

    #77 10 years ago
    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.

    #90 10 years ago
    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.

    #91 10 years ago
    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.

    #93 10 years ago
    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.

    #94 10 years ago
    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.

    You're currently viewing posts by Pinsider dcfan.
    Click here to go back to viewing the entire thread.

    Reply

    Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

    Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

    Donate to Pinside

    Great 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+!


    This page was printed from https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/stern-trying-to-drop-a-bombshell-new-patent-application-for-color-changing-leds?tu=dcfan and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

    Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.