|
|
|
| Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 06:54 AM EDT |
There's an interesting corollary to this.
If I had a gismo that scrolled real physical pictures across my real physical
desktop I could implement bounce-back in a variety of ways -- rubber bands,
springs, buffers, weights, electric motors, etc, etc.
Each physical implementation would be a different invention; the concept of
bouncing back would not be an invention. (Where "invention" is defined
as per USPTO.)
So why should a simulation of the same concept be patentable?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 07:45 AM EDT |
Transitory visual signal comprised of emitted photons would be an illusory
effect, See MPEP
§ 2106:
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed
to one of the statutory categories:
i. transitory forms of
signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic
signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, ___ (Fed.
Cir. 2007);
But the claim in suit
is:
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.
So the claimed invention is a device
(machine) with the above listed characteristics, not the signal it produces.
It's also why it's easy to work around in a non doctrine of equivalents fashion,
because each element of the claim must be present for infringement. If the
software doesn't do the required claim elements (contrary to Mr. Hogan) the
claim isn't practiced. There are limits on the claim placed by (if I recall
correctly) Figure 7 as a process flow chart that enables you to avoid the patent
by using a blue glow instead of displaying an area beyond the edge of the
document.
It's the difference between patenting fire and patenting a Zippo
lighter. Equate the illusory effect with fire, which is a signal.
Samsung
only need answer the infringement of this one claim in suit for purposes of
further infringement or injunction, should the patent or in particular claim 19
not be found invalid in a final action by the Patent Office.
There are other
claims likely more susceptible to your argument. Guess which one Apple stuck
with?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 11:11 AM EDT |
'Pong' comes to mind. Also the whole process as described above is mathematical
modelling.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Charles888 on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
Process: No
Machine: No
Manufacture: No
Composition of matter: No
Improvement thereof: No (using
computers is a general improvement
of process, but this concept is 50+
years old)
So, why again is software
patentable?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
