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
newspicks thread | 197 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
A judicial training problem
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 08:41 AM EDT
We need tech. savvy judges who also have some commonsense and can use it within
the legal boundaries. We need politicos with the same commonsense utilization
but that seem to be an idle dream.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

newspicks thread
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT

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 | # ]

newspicks thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 15 2012 @ 06:35 PM EDT
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 | # ]

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 )