Apple's 7,469,381 (the '381 patent) Claim 19 (claim at
suit):
19. A device, comprising:
a touch screen
display;
one or more processors;
memory;
and one or more programs,
wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be
executed by the one or more processors, the programs including:
instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic
document; instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the
touch screen display;
instructions for 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 detecting the movement;
instructions for
displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a
third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller
than the first portion, in response to the 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;
and
instructions for 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, in response to detecting that the object is
no longer on or near the touch screen display.
According to the Lemley description
this would be a functional claim requiring enablement in the patent
specification, which limits the scope of the claim.
If you were to examine
Figure 7 in the patent you'd find various limitations on the patent claim. The
following limits on translation (panning) not mentioned in the
claim:
Translate the electronic document at a speed of translation
corresponding to a speed of movement of the object.
Translate the electronic
document in accordance with a simulation of an equation of motion having
friction.
To avoid these two limitations you could say fix the
speed of translation and or require the object (finger) be no longer near the
touch screen display.
After the edge of the electronic document is reached
there are additional limitations on displaying the area beyond the
edge:
Display an area beyond the edge of the document.
Display
the area in black, gray, a solid color, or white.
Display the area as
visually distinct from the document.
You could not show the area
beyond the edge of the document, instead flashing the document a non solid color
(e.g. glowing blue), changing shade until a threshold for second direction
motion is reached. You could show the target translation on the document with a
boundary indicator instead of an area beyond the document boundary.
There
are additional limitations in Figure 7 on the second direction
translation:
After the object is no longer detected on or near the
touch screen display, translate the document in a second direction (e.g.,
opposite the first direction) until the area beyond the edge of the document is
no longer displayed.
Translate the document using a damped motion.
Make
the edge of the electronic document appear to be elastically attached to to the
edge of the touch screen display or to an edge displayed on the touch screen
display.
If you aren't no longer displaying the document you
don't meet the first limiting condition. If you don't use a damped motion or
don't make the document elastically attached to an edge you avoid those
conditions. Instead of translating the document image off screen completely
anything less doesn't qualify.
Surely the functional specification Professor
Lemley points out for §112 (f) is a question of law? Further the labeling of
the paragraphs of § 112 done by the AIA doesn't appear to change the meaning of
the 6th paragraph.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| Isn't that exactly what's happening in the case of Apple's "bounce back"
patent? Surely Samsung's implementation uses a different algorithm. In any
event, any code to do this would simply be a wrapper around basic
mathematics,
and as we all know, mathematics is not patentable.
"Bounce back" is
not the goal. The goal is "give the user some obvious feedback
so that they
know when they reached the bottom of the page". _One_ way of
doing this is
patented (and no matter how that way is implemented). But you are
free to
invent other methods (methods other than bouncing) to achieve the
same goal. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
