|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 14 2013 @ 08:57 AM EDT |
From Merriam-Webster.
2 a : persistent in maintaining, adhering to, or seeking something valued or
desired <a tenacious advocate of civil rights> <tenacious
negotiators>
However many times you repeat yourself you still won't be right.
It is like talking to somebody in an echo-chamber or one that has carbon-paper
in his mouth.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, July 14 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
The examiner reported:Apple's Statements to the Examiner Limiting
Claim 19. In response to the final office action and the news regarding a likely
stay of the trial on ‘381 patent, Apple presented a brand new interpretation of
Claim 19 to the PTO during two interviews, on May 9 and May 13, 2013, and in a
supplemental response filed May 13, 2013.7 As reflected in the Notice of Intent
to Issue Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate, Apple proffered its new
construction in response to the Examiner's probing questions about the Lira
reference:
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. 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. In other
words, Apple argued to the PTO that the purpose or cause of the snap back in
claim 19 must be edge alignment.
What you said:So, you
agree that the claim scope has not been changed
On the basis of
the precise wording and meaning of claim 19 there was to be a Final Office
Action invalidating claim 19. 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'. In other words, they disclaimed
all of the subject matter that was in the specification or implied in the claim
that covered all the original claimed scope other than edge alignment. They
changed the scope. Edge alignment was originally only a part of the
scope.
The Examiner leaves us with the following:In
summary, Claim 19 is Confirmed, as there is no prior art disclosure of a similar
device with "programs including . . . instructions for translating the
electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the
electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the
electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first
portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the
touch screen display.
If you read my comment, again, you will see
that it deals only with this specific part of the article. Both the Examiner and
Apple consider the claim construction to be key. What I point out is that the
Examiner's and Apple's claim construction is fatal to the entire patent. The
Supreme Court specifically warns about ignoring parts of the patent law and just
dealing with one or two sections (Mayo).---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
