|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
No, the title wasn't inaccurate.
Apple used "part" of the patent to attack Samsung. That
"part" of the patent was rejected.
So the "patent" was rejected.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 02 2013 @ 02:36 PM EDT |
| The Apple fan-boi trolls are out in force on this one. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 05:20 AM EDT |
With regrets for bearing unwelcome news: it looks as if the nature of the action
may have been misunderstood here.
Claim 19 is said to be "the one that matters", but the (as quoted)
final rejection only rejects claim 19 in Rejection D over a prior patent
"Ording '975". The citation of Ording '975 is also noted by the
examiner as "since removed over the 1.131 declaration". PJ noted that
the inventor of claim 19 was the same Ording as the inventor of the cited art.
A '131' declaration is a statement and procedural step, available in some
circumstances, by which an inventor swears to an earlier invention-date for the
current claim than the date applicable to a citation, and the effect is to
remove the citation as prior art.
If the '131' declaration by the inventor is accepted, then it takes away the
rejection. That is in addition to all of the other caveats about the use here of
the word 'final' as in 'final rejection'.
-ts-
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
