Patent on scale mph??

Since you're dealing with lawyers/judges, why would you expect a logical explanation?

 

The patent in question has more to do with the closed loop control of speed and the display of information on a remote than actual "scale miles per hour".  I beleive that some of the DCC systems have had smph on their remotes several years ahead of the development/release of DCS.  

What in o guage isn't rediculous?, poor QC from Lionel, no parts from MTH, and now that god awful ranking system here on the forum!

Chuck,

So then Lionel could display scale mph on the legacy remote if they decided it was a feature worthy of the investment?

much more talk on MPH here, look for SANTA FE FAN post.

 

https://ogrforum.com/d...927#5371679457316927

No!

????? what about this statement?

"Legacy engine are absolute so each speed step is linear.

Sorry Marty, not quite correct.  Speed steps are closer together relative to track speed at the low end, and at higher speed steps produce a larger speed change.

Non-Linear."

Several years ago I met Mike Wolf at a local hobby shop.  I was the only customer so I got to ask Mike some questions.  I asked if he could patent scale miles per hour.  He said yes but Lionel was free to use any other standard of speed measurement.  Odd-d

Here is what I have learned..

The 200 speed steps of legacy are not linear.

The number indicated beneath the engine number does not neatly correlate with mph.

Lionel, even if they deemed it worthy, are not legally able to report the speed of their engines on the remote in mph.

 

I am still curious how MTH can patent a unit of measure?  So...if the lawyers and judges are not logical (can't argue with Chuck on that one), what was their rationale for allowing MTH a patent that would prevent another manufacturer from using scale mph?   I have got to be missing something here.  I find this very interesting.

And the trouble is with that, unlike the rest of the world, if Scale kilometres per hour were used a US user wouldn't know what it meant. The patently silly (excuse the pun) premise is, does it even matter what the unit of speed is called? If we are only using scale  *** per hour to set lashups and other locos on the same track, why not call them  coconuts or Joshuas?

You can't patent a unit of measure.  What the MTH patent (6,619,594) claims, among other things, is a pretty broad implementation of speed control:

 

5. A model train which receives commands in the form of data bit sequences, comprising: a processor which receives one of said commands corresponding to a desired speed of said train; a motor control circuit; and a speed control circuit that monitors the train's speed and provides information to the processor concerning a current speed of the train, such that the processor compares the current speed of the train to the desired speed and outputs a command to a motor control circuit to drive the train to run at the desired speed.

 

And a dependent (narrower) claim which specifies the same speed control system but having the additional feature of being controllable in SMPH:

 

12. The model train of claim 5 wherein the model train's speed is controllable in 1 scale mile-per-hour increments.

 

(There are some similar generic claims with a dependent claim in the same patent).

 

The "patent on SMPH" issue is a red herring. If the accused control system had the generic features recited by claim 5, then it would infringe the patent whether or not it had SMPH.

 

The only circumstance in which the dependent claim would be significant would be if the broader claim was invalidated.  E.g., the broadly defined speed control system of claim 5 is found to be obvious over the prior art, but a speed control system additionally including the SMPH feature was non-obvious.  In this case the patent would only cover a speed control system with the SMPH feature.

 

 

The validity of these claims is rather questionable in light of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.

 

 

 

The validity of these claims is rather questionable in light of the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.

And What happened in that case?

Does anybody know of MTHs smph is even accurate? Has anybody measured and calculated those readings? Lionel could provide a similar reading but instead call it "relative" miles per hour. And because not all o gauge models are built to scale, "scale" miles per hour is not really an accurate unit of measure.

The problem with the whole thing is DCS is a 2 way system and that is what is patented. I assume the tach reader figures the rpm of the motor and then computes the speed using the gear ratio of the truck and sends this back to the remote. Lionel cannot do this because the way it is done may be patented (what other way would there be?) AND the most important reason. The engine cannot talk to the remote. So anything displayed in the remote can only be a guess based on the relative speed step/voltage sent out. The ACTUAL speed will vary based on the load and what the cruise control is doing to keep the speed constant.  To give you an idea an MTH engine with it's motor turning 1175 RPM with a 3.5 gear ratio in it's truck and 1 1/4 in dia. wheels would be going 60 SMPH. Easy hard coded math and then sent to the remote. Lionel can do all the math in the engine but there is currently no way to get the answer back to the remote.

Ron

I beleive that some of the DCC systems have had smph on their remotes several years ahead of the development/release of DCS. 

Chuck

 

ProtoSound 2 locomotives have been out for 12 years now and DCS sets with handhelds and remotes came out 10 years ago.  Back then most DCC systems only had 28 speed steps total so you couldn't do SMPH and have a normal speed range.  Some DCC guys still run that way and one HO oriented magazine still uses 28 throttle steps in their product evaluations.

 

You may be thinking of a locomotive that BLI advertised some years ago as coming with factory DCC and and speed control in SMPH.  They didn't have a speed measurement technology to do it accurately but they did advertise it.  BLI quit advertising the feature after receiving a letter on the subject from MTH since they had already claimed SMPH as a unique feature in the DCS patent.

 

Does anybody know of MTHs smph is even accurate?

 

Flash

 

Yes, MTH locomotives accurately measure SMPH.  And MTH locomotives are very consistent.  They will match each other within a fraction of an SMPH and they will do it hot or cold, old or new, steam, diesel or electric.

 

I have spent hours speed maping DCC locomotives so they will match other locomotives in a consist.  The speed measurement used in most DCC decoders is BEMF.  Unfortunately BEMF is only a relative measurement and changes with motor temperature.  Proto2 and Proto3 use an optical tachometer for absolute speed measurement that does not change with motor temp.

 

The best way I have found to speed map a DCC locomotive is to use a Proto3 locomotive as your speed standard.

 

I assume the tach reader figures the rpm of the motor and then computes the speed using the gear ratio of the truck and sends this back to the remote.

 

Ron

 

You assumption is a little off.  While DCS can use its two way communication capability to send an acknowledgement back to the TIU that a speed command has been received all the computation takes place within the locomotive.  The remote sends a speed command, the TIU relays the command to the locomotive and the locomotive compares the actual motor speed to the commanded values and adjusts the power sent to the motor until the values match.  The number you see on your remote is the speed you are commanding.  If the locomotive does not receive the command the locomotive speed will not match what you see on the remote although you may get an error message.

 

One feature of Proto2 and Proto3 that many people are not aware of is that the track voltage is used for the speed command when running in conventional mode.   The locomotives internal electronics use the tachometer to measure speed in SMPH and compares the measured value to the speed "commanded" by steady track voltage.  The locomotives internal computer then adjusts the duration of the full voltage DC pulse (track voltage or 12 volts, whichever is lower) to the motor until the actual and commanded speeds match.  That is why cruise control works in conventional mode.

 

Model train magazines usually report starting voltage or speed at a certain voltage in product reviews.  It seems that some train magazines aren't too well equipped to measure voltage, speed or both.  I read one review of a Proto3 locomotive where the starting speed was listed as three different values in three different places in one review!  The model press needs testing equipment and procedures accurate enough to measure performance that are at least as accurate as the locomotives they are trying to measure.  Proto2 and Proto3 locomotives are very accurate and very consistent.

 

I am certainly not a patent lawyer, but the lawyers don't make the law. Look toward Washington. Judges are supposed to interpret what Washington does. Most of you know what GIGO is.

 

If smph is patented, I assume Lionel could use mph. There might be a couple of people who would look at a handheld showing mph and look at a train on their layout and say "it doesn't look like it's going the same 60 mph as when I'm in the car", but those fools are best left to their own devices.

 

 "if Scale kilometres per hour were used a US user wouldn't know what it meant"

 

One (1) kilometer = .62 miles. Not all of us yanks are metric idiots Dave.

 

Andy J.

Controlling speed based upon feedback from an optical incremental encoder is absolutely prior art. It is done all the time in industry from everything from conveyors to 6 axis robots. Converting to a speed unit of measure is also common under the same senario. The math is the same regardless if you're displaying "Scale Miles per Hour", Feet/minute or Farthings per Fortnight. The variables become the pulses/revolution and the relational speed constant. Cruise control on your car works exactly the same way.

 

The description of taking an input and calculating an output value that is a correction to an error to setpoint is classic PID (Proportional Integral Derivative) control. It's been around for more than 100 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

 

That said, it would take someone with the money and determination to challange it in court to get it invalidated. Given the tight margins I'm seeing in this industry, I would not expect to see this challanged. The only senario I could imagine is if company "X" ignores the MTH patent and does it, then MTH would sue (big surprise) and in my opinion MTH should lose the suit.

 

BTW, no I'm not a lawyer but I am a control engineer. I have done what is described in this patent hundreds of times on a wide variety of equipment.

 

Gilly

 

Please don't take this as MTH bashing. I like MTH. I do however, think that this is an invalid patent.

Gilly

 

You are certainly correct that all the separate elements used in Protosound 2 for speed control existed before.  But the patent was issued for the use of all those elements together for speed control of model trains in smph as well as integrating the speed control functions into the control of other features. 

 

While it might seem that someone should have thought of it before, there apparently isn't any prior art for the application of such technology to speed control of model trains in smph.

 

The manufacturers of other command systems could certainly adopt a more accurate method of speed control along with a standard speed curve.  Lionel has done that with legacy without any legal issues.  It would be nice to see the NMRA DCC committee adopt a better measurement method along with a standard speed curve (or curves).  But the DCC committee hasn't posted minutes of a meeting in years.  I think they have bigger problems right now.

"Does anybody know of MTHs smph is even accurate?"

 

Your'e not measuring the actual motion of the object relative to fixed objects.  You're measuring the number of revolutions the flywheel made over a period of time with the assumption that these rotations were actual reflections of the loco moving the "correct" distance for that time span.   It doesn't handle wheel slip on straight aways or binding on tighter radius curves.  Some people have tried to use the record function to get a train to repeat a sequence over and over again e.g. stoping at an unloading platform.  Over repeated tries, the train will "arrive" close but not exactly at the same point. 

 

Most automotive speedometers have the same issue.  Unless you have an INS system in your car or a very accurate GPS or active radar, you only know your approximate speed (in real mph or kph).

Maybe this is an oversimplification but, if you want to know how fast your Legacy engine is going - why not install a Lionel Pedestrian Overpass with the scale mph speed sensor on your layout?

I have found this to be an infomative and fascinating discussion (much of which is significantly beyond my technical understanding)!

 

Ted,

When you said this....

"The manufacturers of other command systems could certainly adopt a more accurate method of speed control along with a standard speed curve.  Lionel has done that with legacy without any legal issues."

 

are you referring to what Lionel calls "Official RR Speed"?  Secondly, were there no legal issues with this feature because while it does refer to mph, it does not report the engine's speed in real time to the operator as it accelerates/decelerates via a display on the remote?  OR, is it that MTH has not patented what data is collected (or what unit of measure it is expressed in) but rather how the data is collected in order to determine the smph.  Is that an oversimplifciation? 

 

again thank you for the education

Ted, that may be the case, but it is not sufficient that an invention be novel over the prior art to be patentable;  it must be non-obvious as well.

 

This is why the Supreme Court's KSR decision is important.  The Court held that the prior standards of non-obviousness applied by the courts and PTO were too lenient.  In particular, straightforward application of technology from one field (such as automobile or robotic speed control) to another field (such as model train speed control) is likely to be obvious.

Kevin

 

Legacy uses a speed curve.  The lower speed steps are very close together, less than one smph.  They get further apart as speed increases.  Legacy locomotives are accurate and repeatable but since the speed control isn't linear and isn't in smph there apparently is no issue between Legacy and DCS.  I think the DCC committee would do well to adopt a standard speed curve like Legacy.

 

Professor

 

Gasoline engines and ships propellers had been around for years and birds had been flying on wings for millions of years prior to 1903.  Maybe someone thought it should be obvious to put them all together.  But no one did it successfully before the Wright brothers.  They received a patent for their airplane and their system of control which the patent office found to be novel.

 

Perhaps the issue here is what is obvious.  If no one had actually done it earlier maybe it wasn't so obvious.

 

The importance of model trains is a long way from the importance of the airplane.  But there has been some important recent ip case law that involved another area of model railroading.  We have very innovative people working in all segments of our hobby.  Many of them have been working in O gauge and I sure have been enjoying the benefits. 

 

DCS and Legacy are very capable control systems, they are cost competitive and have refined user interfaces.  Lionel and MTH have put a great deal of money into developing  them and I hope that they are earning a good return on their investment.