Apple vs Samsung let the fun begin.

Let's try an example!

Here's a US version of one I'm working on:


http://www.google.com/patents?id=dR...LaMItKI6AG12YDwDw&sqi=2&pjf=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA


And here's what you get when you hit the "Find prior art" button:


https://www.google.com/patents/rela...ndustry.0large scale production.0bioconjugate.


Needs work! As I said above, using the right keywords is often critical to finding good art, but one problem is, there are some keywords that are used in pretty much every document related to a particular technology. "Radioisotope" as a keyword will eliminate everything that doesn't deal with radioisotopes, but it also won't really narrow the search down to the actual inventive concept of this application, which involves the particular methods of producing the radioisotopes.

So, this might become a useful tool, but they'll definitely need to work on that context-sensitive selection of keywords. That's certainly not a trivial matter, my brother did his PhD work on stuff like that back in the 90s, and we're still not there.
 
Horatius said:
Actually, yes, they were.


http://dewipat.com/journal/new-use-of-old-device




http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/improvement-patents-new-use-patents-30250.html




http://lahserpatent.com/patent-new-use-of-old-idea/




http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=83402
Click to expand...
Except in this case, for example, Apple got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen.

Which is the very purpose touchscreens were invented in the first place. Nothing new or novel about it, it's like a construction company patenting using a backhoe for digging.
 
Horatius said:
So, actual prior art that apparently shows all the elements of the claimed subject matter. Exactly what I've been saying we need to invalidate the patent, or to have refused it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Horatius, do you think that this places the '381 patent portion of Apple's case in jeopardy?
 
Darat said:
Your stereotyping of 100 of millions of people, especially ludicrous given the fact that Apple depends on the IP created by those very folk to produce all of its products.
Click to expand...

Wait. Samsung and LG employ hundreds of millions of people?
 
Wangler said:
Horatius, do you think that this places the '381 patent portion of Apple's case in jeopardy?
Click to expand...



http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,469,381.PN.&OS=PN/7,469,381&RS=PN/7,469,381


1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: at a device with a touch screen display: displaying a first portion of an electronic document; detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display; in response to detecting the movement, translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion; in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display: displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; and in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion.
Click to expand...


Assuming the description of the prior art given in that article is accurate, it does seem pretty close. Apple will try to quibble about what the various "first, second, third and fourth" potions of the document are, and what "the area beyond the edge of the document" means, but those are claimed so broadly they'll probably read on almost anything.

They might have something in these dependent claims:


16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein changing from translating in the first direction to translating in the second direction until the area beyond the edge of the document is no longer displayed makes the edge of the electronic document appear to be elastically attached to an edge of the touch screen display or to an edge displayed on the touch screen display.

17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document has a first associated translating distance that corresponds to a distance of movement of the object prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document; and wherein displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction for a second associated translating distance, wherein the second associated translating distance is less than a distance of movement of the object after reaching the edge of the electronic document.

18. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein translating in the first direction prior to reaching the edge of the electronic document has a first associated translating speed that corresponds to a speed of movement of the object, and wherein displaying an area beyond the edge of the electronic document comprises translating the electronic document in the first direction at a second associated translating speed, wherein the second associated translating speed is slower than the first associated translating speed.
Click to expand...


...as they might argue that fiddling with the translation distance or speed produces unexpected results that assist the user to realize they're at the end of the document, or some such thing, but even these details might be shown by the prior art. Without access to more details of what that device does, we'll have to wait and see.
 
WildCat said:
Except in this case, for example, Apple got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen.
Click to expand...



I'm officially no longer engaging you on this issue. If, after all that has been said about this particular patent, you can say with a straight face that they "got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen", then there's simply no way I'm able to explain to you why you're wrong.
 
Horatius said:
I'm officially no longer engaging you on this issue. If, after all that has been said about this particular patent, you can say with a straight face that they "got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen", then there's simply no way I'm able to explain to you why you're wrong.
Click to expand...
I note you have never answered when I asked you what you think the purpose of touch screens are. Apparently you are under the impression that they were not intended to use finger manipulation for the same purpose as a keyboard and mouse? Maybe you are just not very computer literate and are bedazzled by using fancy language to describe a mundane task?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
I note you have never answered when I asked you what you think the purpose of touch screens are. Apparently you are under the impression that they were not intended to use finger manipulation for the same purpose as a keyboard and mouse? Maybe you are just not very computer literate and are bedazzled by using fancy language to describe a mundane task?
Click to expand...


Horatius said:
I'm officially no longer engaging you on this issue. If, after all that has been said about this particular patent, you can say with a straight face that they "got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen", then there's simply no way I'm able to explain to you why you're wrong.
Click to expand...

..
 
Darat said:
Your comments where about the mindset, of 'them'.
Click to expand...

Within the context of my post, the identification of "them" seemed clear to me (employees and decision makers at both LG and Samsung).

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my intent.
 
WildCat said:
Except in this case, for example, Apple got a patent for using fingers to manipulate a touchscreen.
Click to expand...

And Google patented showing advertisements, what else are advertisements for?!

Thomas Edison patented using my voice to produce sound. I do that every day!

BIC even patented pens!

Funny how stupid patents sound when you describe them in the shallowest terms possible...
 
OCaptain said:
Within the context of my post, the identification of "them" seemed clear to me (employees and decision makers at both LG and Samsung).

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my intent.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick.
 
Horatius said:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,469,381.PN.&OS=PN/7,469,381&RS=PN/7,469,381





Assuming the description of the prior art given in that article is accurate, it does seem pretty close. Apple will try to quibble about what the various "first, second, third and fourth" potions of the document are, and what "the area beyond the edge of the document" means, but those are claimed so broadly they'll probably read on almost anything.

They might have something in these dependent claims:





...as they might argue that fiddling with the translation distance or speed produces unexpected results that assist the user to realize they're at the end of the document, or some such thing, but even these details might be shown by the prior art. Without access to more details of what that device does, we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom