|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 06:33 AM EST |
You mention display layout and graphic design. When it comes to the art of
writing software (presumably, the best mode of implementation) the programmer
can only guess what the objective is. Is the objective the appearance of being
centred? Just how off-centre can it be to not be part of the inventive
concept?
My guess, without reading the disclosures (I have a life, you
know!) is that the value to the invention of the centralisation is not stated.
Would the useful function of the invention still be achieved if the boxes were
centred, more or less, down one side or along the top? How is the implementer to
know? If the patent claim is to be valid, then this must be clear to the
implementer and not guessed to be a function of graphic design.
If the
invention is to be novel and useful under §101, then the concept of
"substantially centred" must be key to the usefulness or else it is arbitrary
claim that has nothing to do with a claimed invention. Unless the importance and
extent of the substantially centredness is clear to the programmer, then the
term is indefinite.
PS: Not owning a smart phone or a touch tablet, the
claims are meaningless gobbledegook to me. I have no idea what they are talking
about. The closest I have got is that there are two boxes with different content
displayed and tapping on the second box both brings it in front of the first,
centralises it and zooms in on it. Since the context is arbitrary document
display, I cannot see any utility in this.
I can write software (ish),
but do not use a smartphone or a tablet. These claims put me in mind of the
specifier of a tree
swing and how the constructors made it. You will note that there was
inadequate explanation of the utility (usefulness) of the tree invention
(failure to meet §101) and failure to define the claimed invention (§112). Have
a look at the failings of marketing and see how many are equally apt when
considering this patent. I think most of the claims fail §112 and the patent
fails §101 because the utility of the invention is not
defined.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 09:45 AM EST |
The problem here is that substantially centered, is not defined in any manner
other than substantially centered. Ergo, the patentee could prevent pretty much
any implementation by claiming your box is too closely centered, regardless of
how far off center it is. There is no way for someone to implement without
possibly infringing, because there is no guideline for what bounds substantially
centered means. If I move the box all the way to the left or right but keep I
centered top to bottom, is that substantially centered?
If I center the box horizontally but place it on the very top of the screen is
that also substantially centered?
If I offset the box 50 pixels left and 50 pixels above the center, is that
substantially centered? If I position the box 10% off-center? 20% ? 25%?
Where's the cut-off? none is given. No guideline on what can be done to not
infringe. Anything other than positioned in the one of the four corners could be
claimed as substantially centered. I usually position the first box above and to
the left of center, and then move progressive boxes down and to the right. One
reason I do the offset is so other processes which might throw up a box will
probably center it.
Why? Because that's how most programmers are taught. The first thing taught in
graphics programming is to take the screensize divide in half subtract half the
dimensions of the box to be displayed off and there is the positioning point for
the box. So centering a box is SOP, and really is a useless claim. Anything
taught in programming 101 is not patentable subject matter.
Even if "substantially centered" wasn't deceptively and intentionally
vague. They could have cured the vagueness by saying centered within 5%, 10%,
20%, 5 pixels, 20 pixels, etc. Substantially is a weasel word.
Not to mention when talking about screen sizes that might be 320 pixels and a
box that pops up that is 250 pixels that leaves about 35 pixels to either edge,
one doesn't have a lot of room to "off-center" it. On a 3" screen
there's not much room to play around with positioning.
Then of course, I get a lot of boxes on my smartphone that are as wide as the
screen in vertical mode or as tall in the horizontal mode. Meaning only one
dimension is left for off-centering. And I have an SIII, which has a
"huge" screen for a smartphone! You clearly haven't thought through
this before commenting.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Wrong. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 01:51 PM EST
|
|
|
|
