Is that functional description of what the combination of
hardware and software does as part of the machine invention, 'within the skill
of the art, not requiring undue experimentation, once its functions have been
disclosed'?
I would suggest it is not within the skill of the art because of
the challenge of writing the code that simulates the behaviour is not run of the
mill stuff to be done by the journeyman software writer. If that is the case,
then writing the claim in purely functional terms, as we have here, does not
satisfy the general rule given in Fonar.
You seem to be conflating
a journeyman programmer with someone having ordinary skill in the art or arts
closest for the claimed invention.
There's a distinction that in this case
can be expressed by familiarity and ability to use applicable APIs for user
interface elements, graphics programming and document display.
The
journeyman practitioner isn't being asked to exhibit mastery of the particular
arts by implementing those libraries.
I'd also point out the only place
implementation of a simulation is called for in Claim 19 is through Figure 7
(the flow chart) "Translate the electronic document in accordance with a
simulation of an equation of motion having friction".
I'd personally bet
that it's an attribute to a library element in Apple's case. I would think I
could implement the claimed invention without contemplating coefficients of drag
(which I have implemented as a graphics programmer in simulations, along with
things like ray to plane intercepts or clipping systems for trivial rejection -
as in "After the object is no longer detected on or near the touch screen
display, translate the document in a second direction", the criteria raising
other methods of evading the claim outside the doctrine of equivalents reach
besides the blue glow).
The issue falls outside the original answered
arguendo that "The patents are not on the modelling and simulating software and
hardware, but on the illusion that the software and hardware create." Having
switched from Subject Matter under § 101 to invalidity under § 112.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
