Online Rich Media Patented

An anonymous reader writes "Balthasar has been awarded a patent on "Methods, systems, and processes for the design and creation of rich-media applications via the internet" ( USPO 7,000,180). In an article at news.com the company claims that "The patent covers all rich-media technology implementations including Flash, Flex, Java, AJAX and XAML and all device footprints which access rich-media Internet applications including desktops, mobile devices, set-top boxes and video game consoles". The patent was filed on 9 February 2001, five years after the original Flash application, FutureWave Splash, was introduced in May 1996."

Comments

Re:Important Clarification + Rant

[suv4x4]

The patent covers content created online, i.e. if FrontPage was running from Internet Explorer as a Flash or Avalon+XML or HTML/JS, then it'd probably have pieces affected by the patent.

This is one more case of "same stuff but in a new medium" patents, just like Apple patenting their "unique" menu system (used on iPod) for use on mobile devices, as if we never used tree menus before.

Some prosecution notes...

[mavenguy]

I'm not commenting on the merits of the prior art involved in this case since I'm not familiar with the history of CMS systems, but a check of the file wrapper history shows the following information:

1. This is a continuation in part of an earlier, abandoned application
2. Both the earlier and the current application had a restriction requirement, the current application being a five way restriction which was maintained
3. Both of the above applications were passed around like a hot potato; nobody wanted the case; no wonder; the current application was filed with 166 claims
4. Due to the length of time the current application was pending, its patent term was extended 379 days (i. e. it expires 20 years + 379 days from the filing date

The prosecution outline was utterly normal: Restriction, election by applicant, first action rejection, response with amendment, final rejection, response with amendment after final rejection, allowance. The first rejection had a "double patenting rejection", which was a technicality, since the parent application was still pending; it was allowed to abandon, mooting this ground of rejection. In addition, some, but not all, of the claims were rejected as anticipated (35 USC 102(e)) over a patent with an earlier filing date. There were no other rejections, in particular, no obviousness (35 USC 103) rejections.

A consequence of item 2 above is that the applicant is entitled to file up to four divisional applications, each one, if its claims are limited to the invention outlined in the restriction requirement, are immune to double patenting rejections based on the current application claims (they will still be rejectable, however, based on prior art).

Now, I have no idea what circumstances surrounded the handling of this application, but I can speculate that there was a fight by the examiners not to get stuck with this application ("It's a dog!") and, when the examiner of record got stuck with it he was, additionally pressured to get an action out ASAP, reflecting PTO management's long held policy of keeping production high and time to action short. This is one motivation for making the first action a restriction requirement; it gets the case off the books for a month or two, but of course when the election comes back it's back in play and has to be handled.