decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Lodsys - Reexamination - Non-Final Office Action Rejects 24 Claims of '565 Patent
Monday, October 17 2011 @ 08:00 AM EDT

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted the reexamination of the second of the two Lodsys patents challenged by Google and has issued a first office action. Of the four independent and 24 dependent claims challenged by Google, the USPTO has rejected all four independent claims and 20 of the 24 dependent claims. This is an inter partes reexamination.

The USPTO had previously rejected 28 of the claims of Lodsys's '078 patent. (See Lodsys - Reexamination - Non-Final Office Action Rejects 28 Claims of '078 Patent) This brings to a total of six independent claims and 46 dependent claims that the USPTO has now rejected upon reexamination between the two Lodsys patents. The next step with respect to each of the office actions will be for Lodsys to respond. The response on the '078 patent will be due no later than November 28, 2011, and for the '565 no later than December 11, 2011.

Here is an updated table of the Lodsys reexaminations:

Lodsys Reexams (Google)
as of 2011-10-14






















Patent No. Claims Claims Not Subject to Reexam Claims Subject to Reexam Claims Rejected Claims Confirmed Claims Surviving

Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep
7222078 4 70 2 37 2 33 2 26 0 7 2 44
7620565 4 28 0 4 4 24 4 20 0 4 0 8
Totals 8 98 2 41 6 57 6 46 0 11 2 52
Percent of All Claims 100.00% 100.00% 25.00% 41.84% 75.00% 58.16% 75.00% 46.94% 0.00% 11.22% 25.00% 53.06%
Percent of Claims Reexamined





100.00% 80.70%



The '565 office action is not terribly enlightening beyond the original request for reexamination filed by Google (See Google Reexam Requests Devastating to Lodsys) primarily because the office action is focused on the limits it places on the Google arguments. In other words, the USPTO adopted Google's invalidity assertions as stated in the reexamination request subject to the limitations stated in the first office action.

The four independent claims of the '565 patent that have now been rejected are:

1. A unit, comprising: a memory; a transmitter; and a processor, coupled to the memory and to the transmitter, configured to: monitor a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events, increment a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event, cause the display of a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold, cause the memory to store an input received from the user interface, and cause the transmitter to transmit the input to a server.

15. A method, comprising: monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events; incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product; displaying a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold; storing an input received from the user interface on a device; and transmitting the input to a server.

27. A tangible computer readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions that, if executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to perform a method comprising: monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events, incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event in the product; displaying a user interface, configured to probe for information regarding a use of the product, if the counter exceeds a threshold; storing an input received from the user interface on a device; and transmitting the input to a server.

30. A physical unit, comprising: means for monitoring a product for an occurrence in the product of a trigger event of a predefined plurality of trigger events; means for incrementing a counter corresponding to the trigger event upon detection of the occurrence of the trigger event; means for probing for information regarding a use of the product if the counter exceeds a threshold; means for storing an input received from the means for probing; and means for transmitting the input to a server.


************** Reexamination Docket

Patent No. 7,620,565

'565 - Grant of Reexamination

'565 - First Office Action



  


Lodsys - Reexamination - Non-Final Office Action Rejects 24 Claims of '565 Patent | 74 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here.
Authored by: entre on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 08:07 AM EDT
If needed

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys - Reexamination - Non-Final Office Action Rejects 24 Claims of '565 Patent
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 08:25 AM EDT
Have I got the way Patents work correct.

If these had not been rejected, could I have worked around them by decrementing
a counter corresponding to the trigger event?

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The insanity is that they were issued in the first place!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 08:39 AM EDT
The patent office has issued thousands, or more patents that
never should have been issued in the first place.

Doing that, has cost the US business and individuals a lot
of money in legal costs OR SETTLEMENT FEES (paying off
trolls instead of going to court).... all adding up to
higher priced products, etc.

So, US patent office mistakes (showing how they are not
responsible when it comes to their jobs in the first place)
results in patents, and a patent system, that pays for the
lawyers (lawyers are making a lot of money in the
confusion), and the citizen foots the bill in product prices
(as corporations just up the price of products for these
bogus patents that the company has to pay for when lawyers
make mistakes. Citizens are not being protected by
government.

Idea: If patent office employees had to pay for the cost of
their mistakes, then they might not make them in the first
place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still a big issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 10:14 AM EDT
The fact that any claims left are valid is still a big issue. Each claim is in
fact something that can be infringed and google, etc. need to possibly defend
and can be worth buhzillions of dollars. Nope nothing wrong at all with the
patent system. Nor the fact that the actual inventors of such ideas (whether
they add value to society or not) only get paid on average $1000 per whole
patent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nope, still don't get it.
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 11:42 AM EDT
I thought that a patent has independent claims which stand alone and dependent
claims that depend on the independent claims.

If the independent claims are all invalidated, what do the surviving dependent
claims depend on?

Perhaps the write-up offers ways of getting the invalidated independent and
dependent claims up to standard which would then give meaning to the surviving
claims.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patent: code for Profit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 02:05 PM EDT
Because I could find the topic.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Monday, October 17 2011 @ 03:32 PM EDT
For all posts that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )