Intel Patents the "Digital Browser Phone"

tibbar66 writes, "This sounds like an invention that has been invented many times before (e.g. Skype). Yet on October 10, 2006 Intel was granted a patent for a 'digital browser phone.' The patent was filed on Feb. 25, 2000. Here's the abstract: 'A telephone system wherein all the functions of a digital telephone can be accessed and implemented on a personal computer alone, thereby eliminating the need for a telephone set. By means of the computer display and mouse, keyboard or other input/output command devices, a user accesses and implement all digital telephone functions without the physical telephone set, the personal computer also providing the audio function. A graphical representation of a telephone set or other telephone-related form is provided on the computer display and accessed by the mouse, keyboard or other command device, this being accomplished by a computer program providing graphical interface implementation. A significant advantage of the system is computer access to and utilization of digital telephone functions from a remote location with communication via Internet, LAN, WAN, RAS or other mediums.'"

Comments

Actually it's Intel

[grimmy]

If the submitter RTFP they would have seen that it was Intel, not M$.

Re:Actually it's Intel

[kripkenstein]

If the submitter RTFP they would have seen that it was Intel, not M$.

Indeed. But if the patent office doesn't read the proposals, why should the Slashdot submitter? (Granted, the other option is that the patent office did read the proposal, but the patent office worker was so ignorant it sounded like a new idea to him/her.)

Currently there are so many variations on this theme already in existence (Skype, Jajah, even Ekiga etc., in a sense), that it boggles the mind such a patent was granted. Yet, TFP says that the filing date was "February 25, 2000". How many of those were around circa 2000? Skype only began around 2002-2003 IIRC...

Re:Actually it's Intel

[Tim C]

Since the 'voice modem' was in existance such GUIs were around - certainly as easy as 1995.

Doubtless - but that doesn't change the fact that the submitter

1) incorrectly attributes the patent to MS rather than Intel
2) tries to cite Skype as prior art when it didn't exist at the time of filing

Even for a slashdot summary, that's pretty poor.

What would these guys have to say?

[Maltese Falcon]

As well as countless others, as M$ tries to rewite history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VocalTec_Internet_Pho ne

It's an intel patent not MS

[Zuul]

From TFA:

Assignee: Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA)

So what happened to actually reading the submission before posting them on ./?

Also Skype is from 2002 and the patent was filed in 2000, so that makes for a poor prior art.

USPTO, wake up or go away!

[hulkio]

Seems to me that the USPTO is slowly but surely loosing its meaning. I mean, there was so much prior art on this one, how could they even consider the application in the first place? The more they accept these kind of patents, the less they serve their purpose. Their mission (from their site):

USPTO encourages technological advancement by providing incentives to invent, invest in, and disclose new technology worldwide

. Seems to me that their mission is more like:

USPTO encourages its own financial advancement and the proliferation of unproductive patent law firms by providing incentives to create legal ammo for the big corporations that can afford the insanly expensive process of filing a patent

. Oh well, we will just have to produce and sell our nice new inventions from China where they could not care less about respecting and enforcing all that nonsense.

Re:I've seen devices like that

[Teppic_52]

Dunno, but I do have prior art, and unlike most of Intels patents it's not just a loose description, but real software!
I have a cd that came with a serial modem containing software that fits the description of the patent, and the copyright notice is 1999. When I took a look into the manual it was the Feb 1999 edition, and the 'last modified' date of installer on the disk is 3.3.1998.

Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel...

[NormalVisual]

NetPhone was around 10 years ago, and although it didn't provide a POTS gateway, it did allow you to talk to other NetPhone-equipped parties using a telephone-like interface remarkably similar to the softphones of today.

I think someone at the USPTO needs a cockpunch.

1973 invention

[trboyden]

Regardless of whether M$ or Intel are the grantees of this bogus patent. VoIP and by extension a digital phone set via PC were invented by Danny Cohen in 1973 via an ARPA sponsored project involving the predecessor to VoIP - Network Voice Protocol (NVP). Read more on Wikipedia. In addition to this prior art, Cisco would probably have some disagreement with the validity of this patent as well with their Personal Communicator Application.

Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel...

[EABinGA]

Wasn't that Net2Phone?

Here is the companys timeline. http://web.net2phone.com/about/company/timeline.as p

And here is the archive of their website from february 1997 http://web.archive.org/web/19970205073734/http://w ww.net2phone.com/

More Slashdot ignorance

[dilute]

For a community so up in arms about patents, the level of ignorance here about patents is astounding.

What a patent actually COVERS is what is in the CLAIMS. The abstract means NOTHING. Here is the text of the three principal claims of this patent:

1. An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.

3. A method, comprising: receiving digital data from a public branch exchange (PBX) over a synchronous digital communication link; generating graphical display information and events based on the received digital data; transmitting the graphical display information and events over an asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link; receiving a key press and hook state command over the asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link; translating the key press and hook state command to a different format; and transmitting the translated key press and hook state command to the PBX over the synchronous digital communication link.

6. A computer readable medium including instructions that, when executed, cause a computer to: convert received light events and display updates to a graphical format; cause a first display device to display a digital telephone including the light events and display updates; convert received input device data that is related to the displayed digital telephone into a packetized format, wherein the input device data includes a key press and hook state commands over asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link; and transmit the packetized input device data over the asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link.

Also, the patent was based on an earlier application filed on February 25, 1999. For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier. Having to go back these two additional years makes it much harder to shoot down this patent than it would be if the relevant time frame was 2000, as implied by the lead post.

I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested.

Plus, as has been pointed out above, the patent owner was Intel, not the hated Microsoft.

But, after all, this is Slashdot, so why be burdened by any actual facts?

Re:More Slashdot ignorance

[DRJlaw]

No, this was based on a provisional application dated February 26, 1999. Prior art need only exist on February 25, 1999 or earlier to invalidate this patent.

No, a reference needs to have existed as of February 25,1998 in order to conclusively invalidate the patent under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(b).

You are free to argue that a reference dated between between February 26, 1998 and February 25, 1899 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. sec 102(a) or other similar provisions, but then you also need to prove that the reference predates the patent owner's-inventor's date of invention, otherwise it is not prior art. The inventor is also free to argue in return that he/she/they conceived of the invention and began to diligently seek to reduce it to practice prior to the date of the reference, and thus can push back the date and show that the reference is not prior art.

Patent attorneys know that it is far easier to invalidate a patent under section 102(b) then under section 102(a), and routinely look for art that predates the patent filing by more than a year because failing to do so magnifies both the expense of invalidating a patent and the uncertainty in the likelihood of success.

The grandparent stated "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier." The grandparent is absolutely correct.

I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested.

Umm, the earlier the priority date, the smaller the universe of potential prior art in a field, and the greater the likelihood of validity? Drop the smart-ass tone. The patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. sec. 282. If you can prove that the patent is invalid, then demonstrate your skills. Those of us who contribute legal knowledge free of charge to these discussions have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the entirety of patent practice just to support an elementary point.

Read the claims, not the rest of the patent

[rswail]

Only the claims have any real standing when testing a patent... the first claim is for:

An apparatus, comprising: an interface to connect to a synchronous digital link and to send and receive digital signals to and from a telephone switch over the synchronous digital link; a controller to generate graphical display information and events based on the digital signals received over the interface; and logic to communicate over an asynchronous digital link, to convert the digital signals to an asynchronous format, and to transmit the digital signals and the graphical display information and events over the asynchronous digital link, wherein the logic is arranged to receive key press and hook state commands over the asynchronous digital link.

So this patent only covers an interface that communicates over a synchronous digital link, ie, ye old PBX. It doesn't cover any of the VoIP/SIP/RTP solutions. The first claim is too broad, in that PBX's have had this sort of controller/logic etc, so the subsequent claims come into play.

Claim 3 talks about receiving digital data from a public branch exchange (PBX) over a synchronous digital communication link; so it's talking about POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service), admittedly over the newer digital circuits. Again, not VoIP/SIP/RTP.

Claim 6 talks about a "medium" wherein the input device data includes a key press and hook state commands over asynchronous Internet protocol (IP) link;. So if you're not sending the equivalent of key presses and on/off hook states over the IP link, again, you're outside the bounds of the patent.

Re:Typical MS patent, 'cept it's Intel...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wired magazine | Issue 4.03 | March 1996

UPDATA

A Call to Phones
When the first Internet telephone hit the market last spring, the response was enormous - at least according to VocalTec Inc. The maker of the mercurial Internet Phone, VocalTec claimed 150,000 downloads from its Web site in the first three months of the software's release. The barbarians were at the gate, ready to topple the telco monarchs. A flurry of other, less polished computer- to-computer telephony products followed. Soon enough, folks with IPhones and similar permutations would be barking up and down the Net, and old Ma Bell would have to fall in line with lower long-distance rates. Yet, across jumpy, static-filled connections it was most often the uncomfortable, fuzzy silence of communication delays that resounded across the ether.

And guess what? A year later, the transmission delay is still there (yes, even in full duplex conversations), and Internet telephony - with all its "hang-ups" - has yet to revolutionize telecommunications. But no matter: International Discount Telecommunications Corp. (http://www.ios.com/), a Hackensack, New Jersey, Internet access provider and callback service, is positioning itself to become the first company to market with a computer-to-telephone product early this summer.

The company's Net2Phone software will soon enable users to dial any phone number - straight from their computers. Howard Jonas, Discount Telecommunications Corp.'s president, points out that while the typical international call runs at approximately US$120 an hour, the figure will be closer to $6 with Net2Phone. What will telephone companies worldwide say about this? "I'm sure nobody likes it, but there's nothing they can do," he says. "They hated the callback business, too." Jonas pioneered the squirrelly and very profitable callback service in 1991, much to the chagrin of telcos that stood to make money in IDT's place.

International Discount Telecommunications won't be alone in the campaign to cheapen international calls. A project called Free World Dialup (http://www.pulver.com/fwd/), which launched in January and will run through April, is accomplishing exactly what its title suggests: providing people with free links from the Net to international phone lines. Jeff Pulver, one of the volunteer organizers of Free World Dialup, says the project is simply an experiment for proof of concept. Pulver, who also moderates the NetWatch mailing list, a discussion group for Internet telephony issues, adds that he wouldn't mind rattling some chains in the process. "It's the spirit of the Net," he says. Problem is, the Net is also marked by bandwidth limitations that keep Internet telephony quality down - a prime reason telecom execs aren't up at night sweating bullets. Until the arrival of technology that will create real competition, Pulver says, "there's a coolness factor to Internet telephony, and then it just goes away."

Roderick Simpson

[Original story in Wired 3.10, page 140.]

Could this be Dialogic after being bought by Intel

[linuxtelephony]

Dialgoic, before being purchased by Intel, used to have a program of trying to acquire or patent computer telephony applications in such a way that no one could put a crimp on Computer Telephony based patents in general. [I believe this started after someone patented something involving computer telephone and went after Dialogic's customers who were creating and providing computer telephony solutions. In order to protect their market, Dialogic became involved. If anyone can confirm or deny this history, I'd appreciate getting an authoritative answer one way or the other.] I wonder if this patent is the natural extension of that program, but under Intel's ownership of Dialogic. Is Intel trying to use this pastent against someone yet? If this is from the Dialogic program under Intel's ownership, it might be defensive.

The nice thing is that there were computer telephony applications that provided these types of interfaces and services connecting a computer with the telco switches to deliver services a lot earlier than 1999 (or even 1998).

I haven't read things in detail, but it seems the magic words so far were "digital signals," "telephone interface," the computer serving as the telephone handset, and something about connecting with a switch for these services. If that's really what the claims lay out, then I point you to Visual Voice - a VB toolkit for writing computer telephony applications on windows 3.1 with visual basic 3 and 4. If memory serves, that would be around 1995, before Windows 95 was released. I believe you could use Dialogic T1 cards (satisfying the digital signal claim) and I think there was a sample app that had a telephone interface. What I don't remember is if you could use the microphone and sound card to provide the other end of an interactive phone call; I know you could use them for playback and recording of audio files through the phone, but I don't remember if it supported them live/interactively.

If not, I am pretty sure there were other tools/options in the 16-bit windows environment that did this. Some modems used the sound card to provide telephone/speakerphone use. That was single line and analog, but the extension to a digital signal is fairly obvious; I wonder if ISDN modems offered this feature - that would be digital.

And then there's Quicknet - a company I worked for from 1997 to 2000, their Phone Jack hardware and MicroTelco services were created well before this patent (1999 for sure, 1998 also pretty sure) and would seem to provide the same services.

All-in-all, while it's definitely a lot harder to prove obviousness, if there isn't direct prior art to negate this patent, I think there are enough pieces of the patent in prior implementations of phone services that this patent might be invalidated as being obvious. Of course, that assumes the person making such a ruling actually applies the "obviousness" based on people in the field, and not people in general.

Right about the claims, wrong about the merit

[Zigurd]

You are right that it is the claims that matter. In the case, the claims appear to cover a case where the softphone sends key presses and hook-state to a PBX. It seems like a pretty narrow claim since SIP softphones and IP PBXs don't do that. It would be a rather oddball system that was implemented in a way that infringed.

That said, the oddball nature of the claims is also pretty retro. PBX phones worked this way when 8 bit CPUs were hot stuff, and you wanted to minimize what was going on in the phone. It is difficult to believe there is no prior art for something this old-school.

So what is going on here? I bet most of the original claims were rejected, leaving the description badly out of sync with the claims.

Contrast this with another patent filed in 2000 and issued in 2006 (one that I am very familiar with):
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7012997.PN.&OS=PN/70129 97&RS=PN/7012997

In this patent, all the claims went through, so the claims match up much better with the description.