Apple Awarded Major Patent Protection For Smart Phones And Tablets

[This is The End]

If you read the claim, it's not just the touching that is patented - it's the differing results of the touching that are patented. And not just "any different result", but a pretty specific result - the different translations of the frame and non-frame elements.

I believe that was addressed later in the thread, after the answer you quoted.

Since you bring up results:

If you are talking about things like "swiping left makes the screen go left (or right)" and "swiping up makes the screen go down (or up)", those things are pretty obvious.

In my opinion, patentable touches would have to be less obvious. Like "swiping up, then left, then tapping twice opens a new window".

As stated earlier, if something is not complicated what-so-ever, that, to me, means obvious unless the result is novel.

So, patentable obvious touches with novel results, would have to be something like "swiping up makes fireworks appear". That in my opinion would be patentable.

 

[Horatius]

As stated earlier, if something is not complicated what-so-ever, that, to me, means obvious unless the result is novel.

And as someone else mentioned, hindsight analysis as to what would be "obvious" is explicitly forbidden in considering whether or not something is "obvious" in the context of granting a patent.

The courts have long maintained the attitude of, "If it's so obvious, why didn't you do it?" The standard to establish obviousness is far harder to meet than people not familiar with patents ever believe.

If you can't point to published documents that show (at least in combination):

1. All the elements of the claim
2. Being publicly used prior to the filing date
3. in a field comparable to that of the current application
4. And at least some motivation to combine all the references

...you really can't make a solid objection on the basis of obviousness.

As I said, feel free to consider all of that stupid, but until enough voters care enough about this issue to make it a priority to the politicians, that's the standard the patent office has to adhere to.

 

[This is The End]

And as someone else mentioned, hindsight analysis as to what would be "obvious" is explicitly forbidden in considering whether or not something is "obvious" in the context of granting a patent.

I don't think that it takes hindsight to see that the examples I gave are obvious or not. They are inherent in what a touchscreen does. It's like trying to patent turning a page to read a book.

 

[Horatius]

I don't think that it takes hindsight to see that the examples I gave are obvious or not. They are inherent in what a touchscreen does.

Well, then, show us the documents.

That's something you're apparently missing - just saying "it's inherent" almost always is insufficient.

And, if they are "inherent", why didn't the very first touch screens use these features? And remember, by "these features", I mean the things that are explicitly recited in the claims, not some simplistic strawman version that ignores several of the recited elements.

in·her·ent
1. Existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute: "inherent dangers".

 

[This is The End]

Well, then, show us the documents.

That's something you're apparently missing - just saying "it's inherent" almost always is insufficient.

And, if they are "inherent", why didn't the very first touch screens use these features? And remember, by "these features", I mean the things that are explicitly recited in the claims, not some simplistic strawman version that ignores several of the recited elements.

Did you read my examples in post #81? Because those are what I was referring to.

It seems to me you are still having a discussion from page 1. The current state of the patent system was thoroughly discussed there. It has already been established that you could patent a ham sandwich...

If you are talking about things like "swiping left makes the screen go left (or right)" and "swiping up makes the screen go down (or up)", those things are pretty obvious.

In my opinion, patentable touches would have to be less obvious. Like "swiping up, then left, then tapping twice opens a new window".

As stated earlier, if something is not complicated what-so-ever, that, to me, means obvious unless the result is novel.

So, patentable obvious touches with novel results, would have to be something like "swiping up makes fireworks appear". That in my opinion would be patentable.

I don't know how I can be more clear than that.

 

[Almo]

I don't think that it takes hindsight to see that the examples I gave are obvious or not. They are inherent in what a touchscreen does. It's like trying to patent turning a page to read a book.

When we wrote My Word Coach DS (the DS has a touch screen), one minigame had a swipe interface. There was a 3x3 grid of papers, and you looked at one.

Some people preferred swiping up to move the camera up, which moved the papers down.

Some people felt like they were grabbing the paper, so swiping down moved the camera up.

In the end, playtests showed people didn't even understand how to swipe, let alone which direction did what. So we put arrows on the screen, and you touched those to move the camera.

Swipe to move is not necessarily obvious.

 

[Horatius]

Did you read my examples in post #81? Because those are what I was referring to.

It seems to me you are still having a discussion from page 1. The current state of the patent system was thoroughly discussed there. It has already been established that you could patent a ham sandwich...



I don't know how I can be more clear than that.

I'm still having this discussion, because you're still not getting it. Your example:

If you are talking about things like "swiping left makes the screen go left (or right)" and "swiping up makes the screen go down (or up)", those things are pretty obvious.

..is not what this patent covers. Until you understand that you need to find references that teach every single element of their broadest claim, even elements that you might dismiss as trivial, then you can't understand why this patent was granted, or what it would take to refuse it.


Here's their claim 1 again, diagrammed out a bit:

Claim 1 of the Apple patent
A method, comprising:

1) at a portable multifunction device

2)with one or more processors, memory, and a touch screen display;

3)displaying a portion of web page content in a stationary application window on the touch screen display,

4)wherein the portion of web page content includes:

4a)a frame displaying a portion of frame content, and

4b)other content of the web page, comprising content of the web page other than the frame content;

5)detecting a translation gesture by a single finger on or near the touch screen display;

6)in response to detecting the translation gesture by the single finger, translating the web page content to display a new portion of web page content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display,

6a)wherein translating the web page content includes simultaneously translating the displayed portion of the frame content and the other content of the web page;

7)detecting a translation gesture by two fingers on or near the touch screen display; and

7a)in response to detecting the translation gesture by the two fingers, translating the frame content to display a new portion of frame content in the stationary application window on the touch screen display, without translating the other content of the web page.

That's 7 major elements, with several sub-elements. Compare that to your "obvious" methods, and tell me that they're really equivalent.


ETA: Seriously. I can tell you how narrow this claim is by highlighting one phrase from the above:

portion of web page content

So, you could apply the exact same method to any other content (a game, a database tool, whatever), and you wouldn't infringe this claim. That's pretty narrow. There are other elements I could point to that make it even worse. Like I said - you need to consider every single detail of the claim to determine its scope.

 

[Horatius]

In practice, the test for obviousness in Canada was summarized clearly by Justice Hugessen in Beloit v. Valmet. This test is used by courts as the base to assess obviousness from the testimony of expert witnesses.

The test for obviousness is not to ask what competent inventors did or would have done to solve the problem. Inventors are by definition inventive. The classical touchstone for obviousness is the technician skilled in the art but having no scintilla of inventiveness or imagination; a paragon of deduction and dexterity, wholly devoid of intuition; a triumph of the left hemisphere over the right. The question to be asked is whether this mythical creature (the man in the Clapham omnibus of patent law) would, in the light of the state of the art and common general knowledge at the claimed date of invention, have come directly and without difficulty to the solution taught by the patent.

So, is there no "scintilla" of inventiveness here? Go ahead and define a "scintilla" of inventiveness while you're at it.

 

[This is The End]

I'm still having this discussion, because you're still not getting it.

<snip>

..is not what this patent covers.

<snip>

I'm pretty sure I've made it clear that we aren't talking about what this patent specifically covers. That was all discussed on page 1! I was trying to discuss what a sane patent law would entail, not what any specific country has on the books.

ETA: You do realize that the quote you quoted was from 2 months ago right?

 

[This is The End]

When we wrote My Word Coach DS (the DS has a touch screen), one minigame had a swipe interface. There was a 3x3 grid of papers, and you looked at one.

Some people preferred swiping up to move the camera up, which moved the papers down.

Some people felt like they were grabbing the paper, so swiping down moved the camera up.

In the end, playtests showed people didn't even understand how to swipe, let alone which direction did what. So we put arrows on the screen, and you touched those to move the camera.

Swipe to move is not necessarily obvious.

I covered that exact situation a few posts up.

If you are talking about things like "swiping left makes the screen go left (or right)" and "swiping up makes the screen go down (or up)", those things are pretty obvious.

This is a binary choice. As you pointed out, some people prefer one way or the other, and some people are fine with both.

Are you familiar with First Person 3D video games? The camera stick can have either a normal or inverted axis. This is the exact same situation as above. Either up can be up, or up can be down.

If they had let a First Person 3D video game patent up is up, and another patent up is down, then there would only be two such games!! There are, currently, literally hundreds of different First Person 3D games. Some use inverted look, some use normal look, some give the option to choose.

As said much earlier in the thread, if Sony thought this was even remotely patentable, they would have tried.

Any sane patent law would have to require just a bit more "inventiveness" than that.