USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent

theodp writes "Remember that dicey 1996 SBC Structured Document Browser patent that Slashdot readers immediately called BS on back in 2003? Two-and-a-half years later, a USPTO Director-ordered reexam reached the same conclusion, and a final rejection was quietly issued last month."

Comments

What About the Others?

[TPIRman]

That's great news, but what about the other patents included in that same re-examination order? What's the status of "LABEL FOR SPOOLED WIRE PRODUCTS"? Will I finally be able to market my "METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT" without fear of legal reprisal? We need to know!

Re:What About the Others?

[yiantsbro]

"...Seriously, having kids and being forced to use baby wipes..."

Look, Mr. Jackson, I understood that you were going to lay low and play it safe for a bit.

7 Years?

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

Remember that dicey 1996 SBC Structured Document Browser patent that Slashdot readers immediately called BS on back in 2003

You've been examining patents too long if you consider reacting in 2003 to an action in 1996 immediate. Or are you a congressman?

Re:7 Years?

[PakProtector]

Nope. Historian.

We have a very... well, how shall I put this?

We have a good perspective of time.

Peri-Anal Hygiene and Patents

[debilo]

I followed the links provided in the submission to this page containing a list of other reexaminations, where I found this gem:

6,520,942 Reexam. C.N. 90/006,758, Ordered Date: Sept. 24, 2003, Cl. 604/290,
Title: METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT

How fitting.

Quietly?

[Dancin_Santa]

All patents are issued or denied quietly. It's usually rumor sites like Slashdot and www.eff.org that make these quiet affairs larger than life.

Re:Quietly?

[FidelCatsro]

I speculate that slashdot is also not a Rumour site.
After all a Rumour is just an unfounded statement of fact , that hasn't been checked thoroughly by someone .We all know that slashdot has many many editors who never make msitakes like putting out unfounded or repeated storys..

Re:Hooray for the Indians!

[mpe]

Reviewed by Sanjiv D. Shah...it looks like s/he knows what s/he is doing.

But when are Penn and Teller going to review the USPO? There's probably enough material there to keep them going for a whole series.

Read before posting

[anonympa]

I have bad news for you all. A final rejection just means that the claims have been rejected for the second time. It's not over yet...!

Re:Read before posting

[mavenguy]

It's true that lots can happen from this point on....the owner can file a response after final rejection (it just can't be entered/considered as a matter of right as a response to a non-final rejection can), or the owner can appeal to the Board or can file a continuation (now that I think of it these might not be possible for a reexam, but I'm too lazy to research this).

More particularly the claims were rejected under 35 USC 102(e) over another patent, 5,877,765, which someone else in this discussion has pointed out is assigned to Microsoft. As far the arguments made by the owner in this case, they tried to "swear behind" ("Rule 131" affidavit) the filing date of the Microsoft patent (establish conception with diligence up to the filing date of SBC's application) but the examiner rejected the affidavit as lacking sufficient proof of conception. It's possible that the owner could get better evidence and overcome this rejection or get the Board (on appeal) to reverse, since there is(are) no back up rejection(s) here.

In any event it would be interesting to look into what the Microsoft patent was claiming; if they claim the same invention, then the 131 affidavit would not come into play, but an interference would be declared, and a battle between SBC and Microsoft would begin, dragging the whole mess out a few more years.

And here's the link..

[ThyPiGuy]

Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6520942.WKU.&OS=PN/6520942&RS=PN/ 6520942

Re:And here's the link..

[TPIRman]

From the patent filing:

"BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
There are no drawings provided."

Thank God for small favors.

Re:And here's the link..

[DrSkwid]

they tend to only use the left hand for wiping

the right hand is preserved for eating and shaking

note to rich westerners : toilets and bathrooms with drainage let alone hot water, soap and towels are an unobtainable luxury to millions of people

Something will never change

[guardiangod]

Pattent System
by spooje on Wednesday November 12, @10:01AM (#7453079)

Great now if we can just get the USPTO to review the entire pattent process we should be all set.

It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something.

Re:Something will never change

[Tassach]

Let's see if we can get the concept through your microscopic pea brain:
You are talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE. I am talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. The gaping disparity between the two demonstrates that the system is defective.

It's really nice that you can cite the case where the meaning of the word "obvious" was redefined to have a different meaning than what the rest of the English-speaking world uses. All that means we can use it to pinpoint exactly when and where things went wrong, and that we know what ruling we need to have overturned if we want the current farce to come to an end.

The fact that it's the currently the law of the land doesn't change the fact that it's a BAD ruling which is largely reponsible for the current fucked up state of affairs. Dred Scott was the law of the land for many years as well, that doesn't mean that it was ever RIGHT.

As far as I'm concerned, we can put Grahame v. Deere up on the list of the Top 10 Revisionist Supreme Court Rulings, right alongside the others which have changed the legal definitions for key words and phrases like "unreasonable search", "probable cause", and "infringed" to mean something completely different than what they mean in common usage. The Supreme Court occasinally makes spectacuarly boneheaded decisions. Dred Scott was one, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company was another; Grahame v. Deere belongs right up there with them.

I prefer to read the OED to get my definitions of words in the English language.

Try that in traffic court, Mr. MENSA. They'll even laugh at you there.

This isn't a court of law, numbnuts. I'm not presenting a legal case -- I'm presenting an argument that the system is BROKEN and needs to be changed. Perhaps if judges and lawyers would start reading the same dictionary the rest of the English speaking world uses, instead of twisting and obfuscating words for their own self-serving ends and playing pedantic naval-gazing word games, we might have a justice system that actually dispensed justice on a reliable basis.

If I were going to court, I'd hire a lawyer and let him pervert the English language on my behalf. That doesn't make it right, or ethical -- that's just how the game is currently played. The point I'm trying to make is that we need to CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME.

A courtroom is not SUPPOSED to be some strange bizzaroland parallel dimension where simple words have different meanings than they do everywhere else, where the rules of logic and common sense take a back seat to mindless unreasoned tradition, and where the same old mistakes are unquestioningly repeated over and over ad nauseum. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the courts have become. That is why the system needs to be changed.

Not that I'm holding my breath for things to change, except for the worse. Injustice and corruption are becoming the norm, rather than the exception. The trend to subvert and ignore the Constitution will continue to accelerate. The legal system will continue to wallow in it's own filth until it finally chokes on it and brings the whole house of cards tumbling down.

Re:Um, like it's a surprise?

[symbolic]

How many other things does the governent "talk" about doing? Let's see...a couple of biggies are campaign finance reform (never happened), and social security. I truly believe that if they ever *did* accomplish anything with respect to these issues, they'd feel like there wouldn't be anything left to promise during the next election. The formula seems to be, "promise, do nothing, rinse, repeat".

Old, old, old...

[Matilda the Hun]

So the original patent was 1996, the first talk about it was 2003, and it was rejected a month ago? This is almost as bad as that glass in space article.

Tonight in the news: Computer programmers have stopped producing software for the Apple ][e. Film at 11.

My lameness

[kennygraham]

1. Patent the web
2. Improve anal hygine
3. ???
4. Profit!

Time to worry about SBC's CEO?

SBC patent invalidated by... Micro$oft !!

[indaba]

sorry to ruin the party, but this SBC patent was basically invalidated by invoking the prior art of another patent , assigned to Micro$oft, applied for in 1995.

United States Patent 5,877,765 ; Dickman , et al. March 2, 1999
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,877,765.WKU.&OS=PN/5,877,765&RS =PN/5,877,765

which has the catchy title Method and system for displaying internet shortcut icons on the desktop
and yes, from a quick look, it's every bit as obvious as it sounds.

Now, I assume Apple and Sun have taken out licences (or swapped some other IP) for the right to use this patent, but how about :

- KDE ?
- Gnome ?
- you ? - yes, YOU the /.'er right there running distro "X" with icons on your desktop pointing to URL's in VLAGRANT violation of :

2. The method of claim 1 wherein the display of the visual representation of the shortcut object on the virtual desktop includes a graphic for identifying the shortcut object as a shortcut to the resource.

Does anyone else despair of this patent madness, where this rather obvious extension i.e icons pointing to an INTERNET resource is considered patentable, as it's such a VAST improvement (yeah right) over the basic icon to LOCAL resource ?

eg, the Apple Mac in 1984, 1983 Lisa, even earlier Xerox Star etc etc...all had icons - right ?

which one...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement"

In Soviet Russia, bowels move you!
In Korea, only old people monitor peri-anal hygeine
I, for one, welcome our new peri-anal hygenic overlords
Yes, but can it run Linux?
But will it be released before DNF?
You insensitive clod, my peri-anal region is already clean!

Nah, I'll stick with this...

Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of bowel movements!

Re:which one...

[krautcanman]

LOL. I love it! That's freakin' halarious!

Re:which one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Netcraft confirms it: Slashdot memes are dying.

all corps will inevitably enforce their patents

[indaba]

Not quite, that's another question to the one I raised. I agree with you in that Microsoft have never used this patent offensively, but do you remember they DID try with the FAT patent ???

The real problem/question I wanted to raise is with obvious extensions to prior art being patentable. (see my original post)

Finally, there is ~14 years left to run on this patent. A lot can happen in that time.. I wouldn't discount the possibility of Microsoft beginning to enforce their patents, and hence derive significant revenue if the rest of their business model begins to suffer from the encoachment of open source software.

IBM derive SIGNIFICANT revenue ($US 1.6B in 2000) http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,43186, 00.html
for thier shareholders by enforcing their patent revenue.

Companies are not "good", they just have interests (that of thier shareholders) to serve.
Enforcing a patent portfolio is inevitable for companies. It's just in the nature of the beast.

But don't take my word for it, how about Eben Moglen, pro bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/12/08/microsoft_ aiming_ibmscale_patent_program/

Patent stewardship - what nonsense

[putaro]

The reason for having a patent system is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" (that's what it says in the Constitution).

Allowing entities to patent large swaths of ideas and then expect them to be "good stewards" of them is not what the patent system is for. Why should we have to rely on Microsoft's good graces to use what are obviously trivial ideas.

Overly broad patents should not be granted. AT&T had a long history of being good about licensing patents widely and not trying to extort money for them. SBC, the inheiritor of that patent from Ameritech, went fishing for money with it. What guarantees are there that Microsoft will not be taken over by someone else (since you believe they are such wonderful folks) who would decide to enforce all of their dodgy patents?

No, solutions that rely on corporate self-restraint are fundamentally flawed. Furthermore, having Microsoft be the owner of the patent is just luck. The system needs to stop granting these things. In fact, the system needs to start punishing people who apply for this crap. Patent lawyers will apply for just about anything because the risks associated with not researching prior art enough are completely negligible.

FLAGRANT

[drew]

I'm not normally one to nitpick on spelling errors, but if you're going to YELL that loud, you could at least yell the word correctly.

What I find especially amusing about this one...

[keyslammer]

... is that the patent office page linked to would itself seem to be in violation of this patent!

Re:Um, like it's a surprise?

[zippthorne]

There have been numerous "campaign finance reform" bills in recent memory. So far, all they've been good at is securing the incumbent however. The most recent one has given quite a bit of power to the owners of media companies. What do you call a country ruled by its press? Mediocracy?

New /. icon suggestion: Hell freezing over

[Khelder]

In the wake of the Apple and Intel cooperation and now the USPTO actually denying/rescinding/rejecting a patent, I think it's clear that slashdot needs a new logo. Something representing hell freezing over, or perhaps pigs flying...

Re:I work for SBC Knowledge Ventures

[Anonymous Coward]

And no, that isn't why it was created. In fact, it didn't even exist when the deliberations on this patent started. Our prime job is to make sure that we make money off of our intellectual property, but not from stupid crap like the patent mentioned above. While we looove making money from patents which we think we deserve money off of, one of the jobs of the KV team is to make sure fiascos like this don't happen again, which means that BECAUSE Knowledge Ventures exists now, patents like these which are "obvious" won't get filtered through our systems, and if it doesn't get filtered, it won't raise stinks like this one.

Again, I work for KV and I also know that secretly, most KV personnel are happy that this patent is being reexamined.