|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
"In order to get the USPTO to grant claim 19, Apple clarified:"
No! Apple did not clarify anything. Apple pointed out words in the claim that
the Examiner was overlooking. Apple did not change the scope of the claim.
Apple pointed out what the scope actually was and contrasted it what what the
Examiner imagined the scope to be.
"Logically if Samsung's implementation matches Lira - then it is safe of
infringement from Apple's."
That is true. But if that's what Samsung was doing, why haven't they said so
before now? At any point they could have said: --We are not infringing Apple's
patent, we are infringing Lira's.--
"There's also the possibility that Samsung has a completely difference
process to both."
If that were so, would they be trying to invalidate Apple's patent instead
of taking the far easier path of showing that they are not infringing?
"If Apple can get the patent granted because the implementation is
different
then
Samsung can avoid infringement by having a different implementation to
Apple"
We would so stipulate.
"So... since you claim the difference is in Samsung's imagination you must
know how Samsung's code works."
No, the difference imagined by Samsung is, according to pj, a difference it what
Apple says Apple's claim means, not in what Samsung's code does.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
