decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
I am certain because I read the claim (WARNING MAY CONTAIN CLAIM LANGUAGE) | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
That was a lot of fluff.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 04:36 PM EDT
And very obvious fluff at that.
That means that it works just as the screen of the web browser I was using to
read your post.
Talking about patenting the obvious! I wonder how the person that actually wrote
the code, the one that is said to have invented it, would describe it.
What utter nonsense patent lawyers write.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I am certain because I read the claim (WARNING MAY CONTAIN CLAIM LANGUAGE)
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 04:56 PM EDT
You need to include what Samsung wrote here in your analysis:
Through its statements during reexamination, Apple disclaimed all subject matter with respect to Claim 19 in which the specific purpose or cause of the computer code that generates the snap back effect is anything other than edge alignment.12 Edge alignment occurs when the area beyond the edge of a document is shown visually, but then the edge alignment code causes that area beyond the edge to disappear so that the edge of the electronic document aligns to the edge of the screen or window.13 In other words, Apple argued to the PTO that the purpose or cause of the snap back in claim 19 must be edge alignment.14

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Reading is certainly a valuable skill, however selectively employed
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 07:02 PM EDT
I see now that it was your purpose to miss the point and not simply incidental.
I also surmise, in the absence of any declaration to the contrary, that you are
a layman like myself.

I note that, once again, you don't rebut any of the points I raised but simply
restate, at length, what we already know. To be completely clear, I have never
disputed what claim 19 literally says, so repeating it in its entirety does not
provide support for your position. The issue I raised, and which you have
repeatedly refused to address (among other things), is whether a jury would have
interpreted that claim in the narrow manner which Apple has argued it must.

As I understand it, the purpose of Samsung's motion (as indicated by the title
of PJ's article) is to request a new trial in relation to the '381 patent and
the justification for that request is that Apple's interpretation of the
language of claim 19, which is necessary for it to survive re-examination by the
USPTO, has only newly been revealed and is a significant departure from the
meaning which Samsung and the USPTO previously understood. Samsung further claim
(as PJ has already mentioned in response to your posts) that Apple's newly
stated interpretation excludes snap-back for any purpose other than edge
alignment.

Apple's interpretation is not how I would intuitively read claim 19 and I submit
that most lay people, such as the jury, would not take claim 19 to include the
limitations Apple has recently represented it must be bound by. At least they
would not without specific directions such as Apple recently provided the
USPTO.

For the purposes of claim construction (IMHO, IANAL) it is the meaning that
matters, not simply the words. Samsung state (in the van Dam declaration which
PJ referenced in her article) that, at trial, Apple's expert merely noted the
snap-back behaviour and made no reference to whether it was for purposes of edge
alignment (which Apple's newly disclosed interpretation requires it must be).
Furthermore, the same declaration opines that the code Apple presented as
evidence of infringement fails to match the new claim construction.

As I indicated in my first response to you, I believe it is for the courts to
decide whether the jury may have been misled. I read the documents and accept
the possibility that it may be so, pending further information and without the
benefit of Apple's response. You, however, read the same documents (because we
know from your preceding post that you would have read all of the documents
before commenting) and are certain that the issue Samsung raises is merely in
their imagination.

We saw with SCO that companies may present code which they say supports their
case but which under expert analysis can be shown to fatally undermine it. It is
therefore admirable that you have read the source code (because we know from
your preceding post that you would have read all of the source code before
commenting) and are certain the allegedly infringing code is consistent with
Apple's interpretation of the language of claim 19. Even more importantly, a
technology company of Apple's experience would also have been reading that code
and checking it for alleged infringement against its immutable interpretation of
claim 19. Of course, if the code isn't consistent with Apple's now required
reading of claim 19 then something doesn't add up.

Or perhaps your use of "reading" requires a different interpretation
than the one most of us would use.
----------------
Nigel Whitley

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I am certain because I read the claim (WARNING MAY CONTAIN CLAIM LANGUAGE)
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 05:35 PM EDT
And if I had been on the jury, that patent, along with most (¿all?) of the other
patents that Apple claimed Samsung violated, on the grounds of either being
math, or being obvious, or being both.

But them, I'm not skilled in the art of programming, so I wouldn't have been
selected for the jury in the first place.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )