TED the energy detective patents

[gar]

120120-1239 EST

TED displays two patent numbers on their 1000 series system. These are 6,226,600 issued May 1, 2001, and 7,043,380 issued May 9, 2006. Almost identical wording is used in various parts of both patents.

In reading the broadest claims, and with some reading of the description, I do not believe the patents read on the product to which the patent numbers are attached. I do not believe this is allowed.

The only area I was considering was the MTU (Measuring Transmitting Unit). The way the claims seem to be worded is they all seem to include an MTU that has at least two current transformers, each current transformer individually AC amplified, followed by conversion to DC, then summed. In one claim they did not sum the currents until after carrier current transmission of the data.

What the actual MTU I have does is:
Connect the current transformers in series, properly phased for their intended purpose. So this is where the summing is done. Before amplification.

A differential amplifier in the Cirrus chip then amplifies the already summed AC currents. Actually a voltage at this point.

Next the AC signal is processed in at least two ways.

I do not see where any of the claims would read on the way TED and Cirrus process the data.

Thus, I do not see how either of these patent numbers can be displayed on the product. There is no statement that says none or more of the following patents apply. In fact it implies that both patents apply.

Anyone else with an opinion.

.

 

[rcwilson]

What/Who is TED and what type of device is this?

To me, TED is a line of old GE Molded Case Circuit Breakers (MCCB's) or the Technology, Entertainment and Design conference.

 

[gar]

120120-1606 EST

rcwilson:

Just use TED as the search string in Google and about the 6th one you find The Energy Detective.

http://www.theenergydetective.com/

The TED 1000 has two 200 A current transformers into a Cirrus power chip.

Voltage input nominal 120 (100 to 130), resolution 0.1 V.
Maximum current per input 200 A.
Total power to about 48,000 W, resolution 10 W.

.

 

[Speedskater]

They aren't the first company to mis-use patent # information. Lot's of companies brag about their patented equipment, then they list design patent numbers (design patents just cover the looks or style of a unit). While other companies display a long list of real patent numbers and imply that this unit is protected by those numbers.

 

[gar]

120121-0851 EST

I believe my following comments on patents are reasonably correct. This might be of value to you if you ever think of patenting an idea.

For those unfamiliar with patents the claims at the end of the patent define what the patent covers. When a list of items occurs in a claim without the word OR it means that each of those items must exist, meaning be read upon. And the ordering is important.

Consider a part of one of the TED claims.
"... comprising: (1) a means of receiving AC analog signals, converting the AC analog signals to DC analog signals, summing the DC analog signals, and outputting the information; ...."
In this same claim they included a power supply. Seems totally unnecessary.

Note: they take AC analog signals and convert them to DC and then sum them. This is not what is done in the actual product. In the actual product the AC signals (meaning the two current transformer outputs) are first summed, then that data is processed. So the claim does not read on the product.

An independent claim stands by itself. A dependent claim references at least one other claim that by virtue of the dependency becomes part of the dependent claim.

Almost all of the TED claims seem to be closely linked with the concept of the above quoted part. This means that if the product does not contain the above items, then the dependent claims have no value. I believe that TED could have written some independent claims on some other parts of their system that might have been of value to them without the limitation of the input circuitry.

In your broad independent claims you want to include the minimum number of items that can be used to uniquely define what it is that you have invented.

To illustrate from an invention of mine. This related to a conductive type liquid level control. In this type of system a probe is used to detect a fixed level when a conductive liquid touches the probe. In relatively pure water conditions the resistance is very high. If a DC measurement is made then a polarizing effect takes place and the apparent resistance might look 10 times greater than if AC is used. Also this polarization is a time varying effect, increasing with time. So use of AC is an important consideration.

The patent application was filed in 1963 and issued in 1968. There was one drawing, 26 claims and only 7 pages to the patent. The claims did read on the real product as it was produced by the Charles F. Warrick Company.

A portion of the first claim is:
"1. A detector circuit responsive to a change in an input signal, comprising the combination:
a source of electrical energy of reversible polarity;
a trigger device having a first input electrode, a second input electrode, and at least a first output electrode;
a load means ..... "

There is considerably more to the claim, but still in these very broad terms. What is described so far in the claim was a sensitive SCR, but not limited to an SCR.

The remainder of the claim included a diode, could have been described differently, but there really wasn't likely to be an alternative that could not be read as a diode.

The really important aspect of the circuit was that it worked as an AC bridge for measuring resistance and that the resistance being measured did not have an appreciable DC component that would cause polarization. But none of these words were used in this claim. This was 60 Hz based and could operate over a wide variation in AC supply voltage with reasonable stability of the setpoint. The setpoint with existing components at that time could be somewhat above 1 megohm.

A good patent attorney is an expert at crafting claims that read on your product yet are broad in scope, but limited as necessary to avoid prior art.

You would never want to file your own patent application, but you might want to craft some of the concepts to go into the claims to help guide an attorney.

In the Seldon automotive patent the described engine and its broad implication apparently meant a 2 cycle engine. This seems to be the basis upon which Henry Ford was able win in court when charged with patent infringement. Ford used a 4 cycle engine, and at an SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers) local meeting of a few years ago a local patent attorney said this suit should never have gone to court because the Seldon patent clearly did not read on the Ford vehicle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._Selden
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0549160.pdf

.

 

[gar]

120122-1930 EST

If you look at the Seldon patent I believe that every claim included a description of the engine as a "compression type" (meaning Diesel) except claim 4. Ford was not using a Diesel engine and therefore those claims did not read on the Ford car. Why Seldon limited his claims to a "compression type" would be useful to know.

In claim 4 only the words "hydrocarbon engine" are used. That would seem to read on any "hydrocarbon engine". But other parts of claim 4 don't appear to be important from a general vehicle perspective. Why in this claim was "compression type" omitted.

You can learn a great by just studying various patents.

Of the many persons that read this forum there may be a few that have some ideas that might be patentable. Should you bother? Maybe not.

Even if you have a very good idea marketing it may be difficult.

As an illustration a classmate and friend of my son had an idea for a means to detect before failure the likely failure of an electrical cable. He obtained a patent via one of the best patent attorney groups in our area.

To date he has not been able get any wire cable companies to create a cable for sale.

Why is a cable of this type important. In the auto industry down time can be very costly. For example if you are a supplier to a Chrysler final assembly plant, and you shut that plant down by a shortage of parts, then you might receive a penalty in the range of $300,000 per hour of down time. Big dollars. Suppose a cable on a machine fails during production and this results in lost production of several hours, and because of just-in-time you are only an hour or two ahead of the final assembly plant, then you might shut down final assembly.

You can find a copy of his patent at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6443016.pdf

.

 

[gar]

120124-0922 EST

Another patent to look at:

6,095,850

This is the number listed on the Kill-A-Watt EZ package. It does appear that the patent reads on the product.

What is strange is that this patent could be avoided by simply putting a cord and plug on the input side instead of the plug that is integrated into the enclosure. In my opinion from a user point of view a cord would be better. To easily use the Kill-A-Watt I have to put an extension cord on the input side, and usually I also have an extension cord on the output.

This may mean that it was not possible to avoid prior art without making the input and output connectors an integral part of the enclosure.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6095850.pdf

.

 

[gar]

120124-1829 EST

The invention of the Ignitron.

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=jslepian.html

Joseph Slepian of Westinghouse invented the Ignitron. The story I was told by a patent attorney was that the basic patent on the Ignitron from date or original filing until issue was one of the longest. This meant the effective patent life lasted throughout most of the prime life of the product.

I am not sure one single patent accomplished this. There are a large number of related patents. One early one, but maybe not the earliest of the controlled rectifiers is
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/2011643.pdf

If in free patents you search for --- westinghouse slepian --- you will find a couple hundred.
Limiting the search by including --- ignitron --- makes it more manageable. But in the early filings I do not believe ignitron was used but --- vapor electric --- device may have been the descriptor.

Note: early patents are not internally searchable. You can only search for inventors names, patent title, and a few other items. The transition point is sometime after about 1976.

.