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
Samsung has to "find this in papers" because its not actually in the papers. | 393 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
And you can prove that?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 09:37 AM EDT
Please do.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Do you know how Samsung's code works?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT

In order to get the USPTO to grant claim 19, Apple clarified:

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."
Logically if Samsung's implementation matches Lira - then it is safe of infringement from Apple's.

There's also the possibility that Samsung has a completely difference process to both.

    If Apple can get the patent granted because the implementation is different
then
    Samsung can avoid infringement by having a different implementation to Apple
So... since you claim the difference is in Samsung's imagination you must know how Samsung's code works.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That's for the courts to decide
Authored by: NigelWhitley on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:13 PM EDT
The plain evidence (IMHO,IANAL) in Samsung's request is based, not in
imagination, but in the documents submitted by Apple including Exhibit A from
the USPTO.

In the description of the nature of what was agreed, the USPTO writes
"To this, the office noted that Lira does provide for animated
snap-on-column from an area off of the column upon pen lift (see page 15, lines
18-31), where the width of the column is sized to the window size so as to be
less than or equal to the window width (see page 11, lines 10-17), with specific
recitations to the column widths corresponding to the display width 425 (see
column 10, lines 1-5). The Office believes this is important as when the window
snaps back to the column, corrective scrolling is stopped when the display is
centered over the column, thereby placing the edges of the column at the edges
of the equally sized display, where at the exact instance that the widow (sic)
is centered the area beyond the edge ceases to be displayed (same
result)."

On page 6, Samsung quote a statement by Apple in that Exhibit
"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."

My interpretation (IANAL) of those two statements is that both Apple and the
USPTO agree that the Lira patent includes snap-back functionality with the
effect of edge alignment. Apple's defence (again IMHO, IANAL) is that their code
is *trying* to do that whereas Lira just achieves it as part of a different
goal.

As I understand it, submissions by the patent owner as part of re-examination
affect claim construction, if the claim is subsequently approved. The new
submission by Apple, differentiating between its claim and that in Lira,
implicitly excludes snap-back functionality where it is incidental to another
goal (more specifically the goal of centring). It is difficult for me to see how
such a differentiation could be fairly described as "Claim 19's scope was
not narrowed" as you stated, but perhaps you could expand on that in light
of the evidence provided.

I should perhaps state that Apple adopting Humpty Dumpty's philosophy that
"it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less" and
that the claim was always to be afforded that limited interpretation does not
seem to fit with the evidence provided at trial. In the trial there was no
mention of the purpose of Samsung's code and consequently no evidence that the
snap-back in their products was specifically for the purpose of traversal
"until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer
displayed". To put it another way, Apple told the USPTO that claim 19
relies on the code being for that purpose and having an appropriate stop
condition so part of demonstrating infringement would (IMHO,IANAL) require that
Apple show how the code matches those limitations.

It is, of course, possible that the good Judge will see things as you appear to
i.e. that the limitations were always there, and that the jury also understood
that. IMHO (IANAL), given the level of disagreement on that point between
yourself and the majority of those posting here, that is rather a stretch.

But that's what courts are for.
------------------
Nigel Whitley

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Samsung has to "find this in papers" because its not actually in the papers.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 06:55 PM EDT

Maybe Apple should fire their lawyers and hire you?

(They won't win either way, but I think they could get you cheaper.)

[ 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 )