|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
Please do.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Prove what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 09:53 AM EDT
- Prove what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:04 AM EDT
- Prove what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:17 AM EDT
- Prove what? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:58 AM EDT
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|