|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|