|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
Regardless of your insistence to the contrary:
The claim was ammended
as is clear in the attached communications between Apple and the
USPTO.
As we keep getting told by various individuals who - I assume -
actually practice Patent Law (IANAL - how about you?):
The history at the
USPTO of the patent adjudication which ends up granting the patent is limitating
claim information that can be used in a Court Of Law in order to limit the
claims of the Patent!
In order to get by the objections of the USPTO
examination, Apple responded to clarify the limitations of the patent by showing
a clear difference between the Prior Art and their own patent:
While
Lira's snap-to-column function incidentally achieves the visual result of
translating in the second direction "until the area beyond the edge of the
electronic document is no longer displayed" (only when the width of the column
corresponds to the width of the display), Lira's function clearly does so
through the use of executable program instructions having a different stop
condition based on centering of the column."
Now that may not have
changed the wording per se - it certainly does alter the scope of just how far
Apple's Patent can reach.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:53 PM EDT |
2) Yes, the patent was invalidated.
3) Yes, the scope of the patent has changed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 12:43 AM EDT |
The '381 patent was not invalidated. The patent office merely
issued a letter
putting forth an assertion that the claim was anticipated or
obvious in view of
a document. That assertion was challenged and the Office
agreed that the
previous assertion of the Office was in error.
The
claim was not amended. It is the same claim that the jury ruled was
infringed.
So, if the wording has not changed, was the jury finding Samsung
guilty of infringement of Lira or Apple's patent?
How are people not "skilled in the technological area to which the invention
pertains" supposed to know, if even those who are supposed to be so
skilled [ie the "authors" of the Patent"] can't tell?
cm [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
