Slashdot Mirror
Apple: Dumb As a Patent Trolling Fox On iPhone Prior Art?
theodp (442580) writes "GeekWire reports that a Microsoft researcher's 1991 video could torpedo Apple's key 'slide to unlock' patent, one of 5 patents that the iPhone maker cited in its demand for $40 per Samsung phone. Confronted with what appears to be damning video evidence of prior art that pre-dates its 'invention' by more than a decade, Apple has reportedly argued that the sliding on/off switch demoed by Catherine Plaisant is materially different than the slide to unlock switch that its 7 inventors came up with. Apple's patent has already been deemed invalid in Europe because of similar functionality present in the Swedish Neonode N1M."
The toggle widgets demoed in the video (attached below) support sliding across the toggle to make it more difficult to swap state (preventing accidental toggling). The video itself is worth a watch — it's interesting to see modern UIs adopting some of the idioms that testing in the early 90s showed were awful (e.g. Gtk+ 3's state toggles).
This same crap keeps coming up on slashdot, where someone takes some 'evil patent' that's 'so obvious', hunts down an example of something vaguely similar, and shouts 'look, prior art, prior art! it's invalid!'. This isn't how prior art (or patents) work. These are the same kind of idiots that seriously think apple patented a rounded rectangle, or call microsoft a patent troll, or whatever... if you don't like (software) patents, that's great, but take the time to understand them before flinging fud.
In the case of that video, the sliding was really because you were "dragging" a representation of a physical object on-screen - and it wasn't unlocking anything, it was just toggling a state in a switch.
The iOS slide to unlock is not a physical counterpart for anything, it's a gesture. There is other prior art that uses wholly virtual gestures to unlock something, which seems much more relevant than anything in this video.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The only thing worse than granting ridiculously obvious, simple, overly broad, or just plain stupid patents (and the companies trying to enforce them) is the absurd state of copyright protection in the USA.
I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent in the first place.
It's an intuitive action for unlocking because it mimics the motion of using a sliding deadbolt... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising:
detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
To show a patent claim is not new, you have to show that a single piece of prior art shows everything in the patent claim. This piece of prior art wouldn't do that, since it doesn't show a hand-held electronic device, doesn't really show "continuous" movement as opposed to switching between several icons, and it doesn't show unlocking a device. But that's just one of the requirements for validity - 35 USC 102. Incidentally, this type of prior art is called "anticipatory prior art," because it anticipates everything in the patent. It's what laymen usually mean when they say "there's prior art for X patent!" That statement doesn't mean anything, because there's always prior art for something - Neanderthal Ug's wheel is prior art for all-terrain run-flat tires. Just not anticipatory prior art.
Another requirement is non-obviousness - 35 USC 103. Under this requirement, you can show that a patent claim is obvious by showing that a combination of prior art references together teach each and every element in the claim and that they could be reasonably combined. So, if the Claim is A+B+C+D and one reference shows A+B and another shows C+D and they could be combined, that shows that the Claim is obvious.
So, for example, if you can find other references that show a hand-held device, continuous movement of an image, and unlocking a device, those combined with this may be enough to show that the Claim is obvious. That should be pretty easy to find.
One caveat there is that if a reference teaches away from the combination, it may not be available to use in the rejection. So, if the C+D reference says "never combine me with A+B, because bad things happen", then it may not be obvious to combine it with A+B (there may also be an unrecognized E element that makes it work with C+D). Here, the usability study at the end of the video seems to argue away from using sliders as touch-screen switches. But that may not be a strong enough disparagement of their use, nor does it necessarily argue away from its combination with an unlocking system.
Disclaimer: I am a patent attorney, but I am not your patent attorney. The above is not legal advice and is merely for (my own) amusement purposes. I have not spent any serious time looking into this patent, the specification, or any of the dependent Claims.
Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image.
Android's slide to unlock works from both left to right and right to left; so its completely different too right?
And if I implement Apple's slide to unlock EXACTLY, but put it on a screen built into a fridge, they can't touch me?
Yeah. Right.
This Windows Phone video is a lot closer to what the iPhone does, though the issue that one has as prior art is that it seems to be on a narrow touch-pad area (like a palm pilot) and not on the touch screen.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
Respectfully, and without necessarily disagreeing with your fundamental point, those terms don't mean what you think they do, legally.
"Prior art" is "anything in the relevant art, that's prior." The Wright Brother's plane is prior art for the Space Shuttle. The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Model S. That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim. So, for example, even though the Model T is prior art for the Model S, it wouldn't invalidate a patent on the battery pack, for example. Similarly, sliding deadbolts are prior art for the virtual slide-to-unlock, but they alone don't show everything in the patent.
"Obvious" is a legal conclusion, like "guilty". It's different than just the "duh" gut feeling that we typically mean when we call something obvious. And just as you show someone is guilty by showing that they committed each and every element of a crime, you show that something is obvious by showing that one or more pieces of prior art exist that, alone or in combination, teach each and every element of the patent claim. So, again, sliding deadbolts show unlocking something... but they alone don't show all the other bits of the claim, like a handheld electronic device. That means you'd have to at least combine "deadbolts" plus "mid-90s Palm smartphone" to show that element.
Using the right terms - anticipatory prior art when you mean that, or obvious when you have a combination of prior art references to invalidate a claim - will increase your credibility with people who are in power to make changes to the patent system.
Actually, they are right.
A Patent is technically REQUIRED to not be obvious to a person 'skilled in the art' when given information of the prior art.
So, a phone UI developer would have to still not find the apple slide to unlock patent obvious given knowledge that a
UI idea to unlock the phone was needed, and knowledge of is video.
All of this of course should make the whole 'on a capacitive multitouch screen' approach, etc laughable - but again the
rules are being VERY selectively enforced.
Of course Apple, and several others, have managed to blatantly hijack the patent system, and basic patent law is not being
applied in their cases - could it PERHAPS have something to do with the huge number of patents they (and several notable others)
fine with them, and therefore the percentage of the patent offices total revenue they generate?
How do I know the requirements above? I have at times spent years arguing with the patent office trying to get patents accepted
which were ENORMOUSLY less obvious that what passes for acceptable from certain major cooperated. With little to no success.
The rules are simply being blatantly flouted by a certain select group.
Apple is a straight up troll, they haven't innovated a damn thing on on their devices in 4 years pretty much. Samsung has better phones and more reasonable prices with sizes people want not Apples take what we give you crap. One of said patents was for a rounded rectangle as well. Having a court case in a court house full of Apple people is complete joke.
Corps throw their "IP" wads of shit against the USPTO dartboard and sees what sticks.
Some shit ALWAYS sticks.
In recent years it seems like there has been a fairly obvious effort by early posters on a story to direct the discussion in a certain way. For example, an anti-Microsoft story pops up and within minutes at least 2 or more not very subtle pro-MS posts are submitted, usually by accounts with relatively low UIDs for maximum impact. The same is true here with Apple. I have to wonder if various companies actually have bots (or interns) scraping all the popular sites for any possible negative mention of their brand and alerting the next-level of folks whose job it is to try to get in early with comments in support of the company. Very early ones tend to be quick statements criticizing the posting while later ones take a little more time to compose and are slightly better reasoned. Of course, on sites like Slashdot these often get buried pretty quick, but on some other sites they really do seem to influence the whole tone of the discussion throughout.
Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image. The video does not demonstrate a portable device, nor is it done using a single image. Notably, as shown in the screen capture or TFA, two different images represent ON vs. OFF.
https://www.google.com/patents/US8046721
To be clear...you are stating why this video may not apply to show that the Apple's patent may be non-novel, because it may be an improvement over the prior art, however, that certainly doesn't mean it's nonobvious, right?
Note: I haven't read the actual patent's claims so I have no idea if there's anything nonobvious in there (patent claims != title, unlike what most /.'ers think), but your points of "on a portable device" and "done using a single image" sure don't seem nonobvious.
the patent office assumes when a patent is filed for that company did the work to see if it was done before. Which Apple has a clear history of stealing others work and claiming it as their own. Its left up to the court and someone to fight it to make it invalid. Problem is if its used against people that have no $ to spent on court cases they just pay even if the patent is bogus and invalid.
Looks exactly the same to me. Take your finger, touch the slider, and move your finger to drag the slider to change the state. If you think Apple's implementation is fundamentally different, then patent trolls have taught you well, young lawyer.
Sue me for this example but here goes ...
Even since I was 3 or 4, almost every time I had to go #1 I used an apparatus that I called a "zipper" and used its "slide to unlock" feature.
Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
the patent office assumes when a patent is filed for that company did the work to see if it was done before.
That's simply not true. Don't spread misinformation.
I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent in the first place.
It's an intuitive action for unlocking because it mimics the motion of using a sliding deadbolt... which i'd suggest counts as both obvious *and* prior art.
The sliding deadbolt that Apple used to model the action had rounded corners.
My Palm Pilot had rounded corners, FFS. Even my calculator in University did.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Unsurprisingly Vulcan tech is ahead of our time.
That's because she's speaking English.
This is probably the most dangerous precedent Apple is trying to set. The only reason FRAND patents are priced lower than regular patents is that by being adopted as a standard, more products will license the patent. Hence the patent holder makes up in volume what they lose by charging less per device.
If Apple gets their way and (1) gets Samsung's FRAND patents effectively deemed worthless (already happened when Obama vetoed the ITC judgment against Apple), and (2) forces Android makers to license their non-FRAND patents for anything close to the ridiculous $40 per device figure, then that's it. Game over. You can kiss electronics standards goodbye. Nobody is going to license their patent under FRAND for pennies per device, when they can keep it proprietary and charge dollars or tens of dollars per device.
Apple will have ushered in a new age where nothing is compatible except by chance, and prices are ridiculously high as patent holders are able to charge 10x or 100x more by not submitting their patent to a standard. All the patents on LTE currently make up about 10%-20% the cost of your phone. Work out the math and your next phone (yes, even your iPhone) will cost as much as a used car if patent holders were to charge 10x or 100x more like Apple is asking.
See, the lawyers can play all the games they want in court, and make up all sorts of BS claims about how much the non-FRAND patents are worth (and how much FRAND patents aren't worth). But the market economics of this is very simple: If a patent holder can make more money by not submitting their patent to FRAND, then they're not going to submit it to FRAND. If you let the BS prevail, you can destroy FRAND and along with it a vast segment of the economy. So no, Apple cannot ask "whatever price they want". The amount they can ask for is intrinsically tied to how much a FRAND patent is worth. If they want to ask for more than this intrinsic ratio, then that is an admission that Samsung's FRAND patents were worth more than they were willing to pay.
Here's the argument for non-obviousness from the patent:
One problem associated with using touch screens on portable devices is the unintentional activation or deactivation of functions due to unintentional contact with the touch screen. Thus, portable devices, touch screens on such devices, and/or applications running on such devices may be locked upon satisfaction of predefined lock conditions, such as upon entering an active call, after a predetermined time of idleness has elapsed, or upon manual locking by a user.
Devices with touch screens and/or applications running on such devices may be unlocked by any of several well-known unlocking procedures, such as pressing a predefined set of buttons (simultaneously or sequentially) or entering a code or password. These unlock procedures, however, have drawbacks. The button combinations may be hard to perform. Creating, memorizing, and recalling passwords, codes, and the like can be quite burdensome. These drawbacks may reduce the ease of use of the unlocking process and, as a consequence, the ease of use of the device in general. Accordingly, there is a need for more efficient, user-friendly procedures for unlocking such devices, touch screens, and/or applications.
Apple was trying to come up with a way to prevent butt-dialing and other unwanted device actions. The point of using a sliding motion is that it's unlikely to happen via random touches, but is reasonably intutive.
Microsoft's video doesn't really show a slider. It shows touch buttons that look visually like sliders. But you can trip them just by touching in the active area for the desired state. This is shown in the video where the demonstrator runs their finger down a column of switches and they all switch. Apple requires an explicit "click and drag" operation to unlock.
It may seem trivial, but if nobody did it before the patent, and everybody wanted to do it after the patent, it's a valid invention. "Obvious" does not mean "obvious in hindsight".
It slides like a deadbolt and is used to "unlock" the phone, so it is functionally similar to a deadbolt.
Such deadbolt predate the iphone by over a hundred years. Apple, it seemed, was hell-bent on copying well known ideas that people are already extremely familiar with in real life, virtualize them, and then would go and try to claim that *THEY* invented them.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
This is very cool. Seriously, if only she had discovered this 20 years later, she would be a millionaire!
"...they can't touch me?"
Yes, they can. But only from left to right.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
If Apple gets their way and (1) gets Samsung's FRAND patents effectively deemed worthless (already happened when Obama vetoed the ITC judgment against Apple),
Just to correct a misunderstanding, the veto of the ITC decision was absolutely correct, and did not do anything to the value of Samsung's FRAND patents:
1) The ITC does not have the power to award monetary damages for infringement. They only have the power to issue an injunction against imports;
2) Samsung agreed, when they put their patents into FRAND status, that they would never seek an injunction against an infringer: instead, they would only be allowed to seek monetary damages. This is the same for every FRAND patent - no one has ever gotten an injunction over infringement of a FRAND patent;
3) when the ITC issued the import injunction for violation of the FRAND patent, Samsung was in breach of its FRAND agreements.
There are two results at that point - either the ITC import ban is vetoed, or the DoJ has to pursue Samsung for anti-trust violations. The former is vastly preferable for everyone.
And it did not affect the value of the patents, as their value was never based on injunctive relief, and the veto of the ITC decision in no way prevents Samsung from getting a judgement for damages in a regular court.
I've read interviews where patent clerks said precisely that. I'm not motivated enough to look for them, but it IS true.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I've read interviews where patent clerks said precisely that. I'm not motivated enough to look for them, but it IS true.
No, it's not. And in fact, that post is the first hit on Google for that combination of words, making any such claim of a previous published interview suspect.
Furthermore, here's the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure". As noted in section 704.01:
After reading the specification and claims, the examiner searches the prior art.
No mention of "don't bother, because you can just assume that the company did the search." Sorry, you're simply incorrect, and your alleged interviews do not exist.
Notably, as shown in the screen capture or TFA, two different images represent ON vs. OFF.
If you actually watched the video or looked at TFA you would see it's a slider
The patent system is intended to help engineers and inventors. It is their understanding of "obvious" and "prior art" that is relevant, not the understanding of (imitation) lawyers with a stick up their ass, like you.
Yes, slide-to-unlock has plenty of prior art in every sense of the word, and the arguments people have been making here are relevant: (1) it's a simple simulation of a familiar physical paradigm, and (2) it has been implemented numerous times before Apple patented it.
Furthermore, even in legal discussions, it is legitimate and reasonable to talk about "prior art" and "obviousness", just like in science and engineering, we also use convenient shorthands and aren't 100% precise every time we talk about some concept. If you have trouble following such discussions, the problem is with your understanding.
no one should have ever had to show prior art...the patents for UI elements like "pinch and zoom" are absolutely ludicrous & are a product of ignorance and manipulation
I think this goes to the core of your understanding of this issue...this you describe here, this should not be at all patentable:
if this is "what is patentable" then its so broad nothing matters...it's a complete waste of time to think about these issues
what should be patentable? I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean we can't conclude that the status quo is waaaaay too broad to be consistent from one patent to the next
Thank you Dave Raggett
"handheld electronic device"
(hint: the most magical word is the first one)
The fundamental problem with US patents is the same as with parking tickets. The worse the legislation there is to control them, the better business model it is for the state. Don't expect legislation that reduces gross profit, no matter how unfair everyone can see it is.
And just as you show someone is guilty by showing that they committed each and every element of a crime
You went overboard with this statement.
You don't show each and every element of a crime to get a conviction. There's means, motive and opportunity. Often proving just two of those can get a guilty verdict.
it's interesting to see modern UIs adopting some of the idioms that testing in the early 90s showed were awful (e.g. Gtk+ 3's state toggles).
Interesting but unfortunately not uncommon. I worked with the Gnome UI design group for a short time during the early days and basically gave up because of people with more enthusiasm than knowledge dominating the mailing list.
User interface design is a typical bikeshed problem. Everyone things it's not that difficult and he can do it and few people realize just how much effort and expertise goes into it. Heck, "Human-Computer Interaction" (Dox, Finlay, Abowd, Beale) is 800 pages.
I wish IArchitect's user interface hall of shame were still around.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
"No, I'm going to great lengths to justify my analysis. And why should I not? Why would I post an observation I couldn't (or wouldn't) defend?"
Not many people like to be wrong.
"Apple's patent claim is for a portable device that uses a single image."
That device was portable. Just not as portable as a phone from 17 years later. As everyone knew it would be (so no innovation there).
You're interpreting single image incorrectly. The Microsoft implementation is "single image". Apple's animation is smooth, Microsoft's animation reflects the state of computer resources of the day and is jerky.
Prior art is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please note the opening line: "Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
Obvious is the corollary of non-obvious, a requirement under US law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Note: there is no point in arguing with me on this - go argue with wikipedia.
"Simply because I know the law doesn't mean that I'm biased."
You have a very limited knowledge of the law.
You are biased in favour of patents, just as I'm biased in favour of getting rid of patents - that much is obvious (and there is nothing wrong with that of course - it is how it is).
What's interesting is how other handsets have been forced to circumvent the patent. Samsung currently uses a screen image and lets the user slide any direction to be rewarded with a sparkly effect & noise to unlock. Vanilla Android allows users to draw a dot from the center of the screen to the perimeter of a circle to unlock. Windows Phone (and GNOME 3) have a weighted screen saver which must dragged up to remove it.
So in a sense devices have innovated to circumvent a stupid patent, but the patent shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
Here's your prior art. Seriously, taking a common real world design and making something on a touch-screen that looks like it should never be patentable. It would be like patenting an on-screen control that looks like a dial or an on-screen meter that looks like a galvanometer.
Agree with you 100%
Patent monopolies are a *tremendous* gift to inventors, and they should be granted (if ever) only for tremendous gifts to the world. The broken patent system has brainwashed people into thinking that every you ever do needs to be patented so that no one else can ever do it.
The pharma patents always get pushed to the front of the class in these discussions. Fine. Cure cancer & patent your cure. We'll pay you for the favor, and we'll pool money to make sure that all the poor people with cancer can also afford it.
But the relative position of a trackpad and keyboard?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I'd flavor your comment with this:
The term "obvious" in the patent world has been significantly watered down in recent times. Consider for example that adding an eraser to the back of a pencil was considered "obvious" and therefore, not patentable in its time.
Common Sense (+1)
Note: there is no point in arguing with me on this - go argue with wikipedia.
I believe there's no point in arguing with you on it, because we're in agreement. Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Even all three elements isn't enough to convict.You can prove all three, but a good jury also needs evidence the accused actually did it. I.e. You can have means motive and opportunity and still not be the actual criminal. That's not to say people don't get convicted for as much, but logically you need more.
I'd flavor your comment with this: The term "obvious" in the patent world has been significantly watered down in recent times. Consider for example that adding an eraser to the back of a pencil was considered "obvious" and therefore, not patentable in its time.
That's the same test as now, though - pencils are known, erasers are known, it's trivial to combine the two, therefore it's obvious.
I think your point is off if you are arguing for Apple. The only thing I think that they might try to use is in their Claim 1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display. Remember, a patent abstract means NOTHING. You need to look at its claim only. They specified that it is to unlock a hand-held electronic device which is quite specific, and that is different from the video which is a touch screen in general. Other than that (the part of unlocking functionality, using image to do it, the way that the touch must continuously stay on the screen, etc.), nothing is really non-obvious for the method because it is very similar to the video. If Apple is trying to argue on their image use, then they need a design patent for that because I am not sure that a utility patent could represent the case well.
This reminds me of Mystery Men for some reason regarding toggles...
Apple of course being in the role of Captain Amazing because we're obviously "morons."
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
To a lot of people here, Apple is just rehashing an already existing technology in it's entirety.
"In the United States, there is a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office any known prior art that is material to the patentability of any claim of a pending U.S. patent application. " from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...
You are a lying troll. The examiner examins the prior art, but doesn't search for more, because the duty is on the applicant to disclose. Even from your own link " then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents" So they "search" for the prior art that's disclosed, and are not instructed to search for new or undisclosed prior art. You are 100% wrong, and have been corrected on this multiple times, so I can only assume you are a lying troll (a genuine error would have been recognized and corected - even your own cite proves you wrong).
Posted anonymously because I also modded your lying trolls as such.
Learn to love Alaska
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid." vs "That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
It would help if you actually read the rest of my post rather than just one sentence. For example, that sentence follows this one: "The Model T is prior art for the Tesla Model S. That doesn't mean they're anticipatory prior art, which is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
Do you disagree with that? Or do you really think that the existence of the Model T means that Elon Musk can't get any patents?
"In the United States, there is a duty to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office any known prior art that is material to the patentability of any claim of a pending U.S. patent application. " from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journa...
Yes, any known prior art. There's no duty on the patent applicant to search for any art. See MPEP 704.01. And accordingly, the statement "the patent office assumes when a patent is filed for that company did the work to see if it was done before" is false. As I said.
You are a lying troll. The examiner examins the prior art, but doesn't search for more, because the duty is on the applicant to disclose.
You're absolutely wrong. Abusive, too, which is hilarious, given how wrong you are.
Even from your own link " then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents"
I find it amusing that you call me a "lying troll", and then two sentences later quote out of context. Here's the full quote: "The examiner, after having obtained a thorough understanding of the invention disclosed and claimed in the nonprovisional application, then searches the prior art as disclosed in patents and other published documents, i.e., nonpatent literature (NPL). Any document used in the rejection of a claim is called a reference."
They search all published documents, including via Google Scholar.
So they "search" for the prior art that's disclosed, and are not instructed to search for new or undisclosed prior art. You are 100% wrong, and have been corrected on this multiple times, so I can only assume you are a lying troll (a genuine error would have been recognized and corected - even your own cite proves you wrong).
The part you clipped out from that quote actually proves you wrong, as it explicitly describes how they search beyond just patents.
But here's the best part of your post:
Posted anonymously because I also modded your lying trolls as such.
Re:I'm not entirely sure how it merited a patent i (Score:2)
by AK Marc (707885)
BWAAHAHAHAAAA!
I'm simply pointing out the subtle differences in definitions. You're welcome to edit wikipedia to reflect a more exact or correct view in their opening sentence.
I'm simply pointing out the subtle differences in definitions. You're welcome to edit wikipedia to reflect a more exact or correct view in their opening sentence.
There's actually no difference in the definition from what I said. Here's wiki:
"Prior art constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality"
and here's me:
"Prior art" is "anything in the relevant art, that's prior."
That's same thing.
Then you jumped ahead to the next sentence. Again, wiki:
"If an invention has been described in the prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid."
and me:
"[A]nticipatory prior art... is art that teaches everything in a patent claim."
In other words, anticipatory prior art is prior art that describes an invention. If an invention is anticipated, it is not valid. That's also the same thing.
Wiki is correct, I am correct, and you seem to be confusing the matter by comparing parts of one sentence to parts of a different sentence. Hope this all helps.
My apologies I haven't expressed this well. I'm talking about how you have expressed something and the name you have called it. I'll try again.
Wikipedia says if an invention has been described by "prior art" it is invalid, while you say that everything in the patent must be taught and it is called "anticipatory prior art". You took someone up on their use of the phrase "prior art" and said he had to refer to "anticipatory prior art". I think that wikipedia shows otherwise. I don't see anywhere on the wiki as it being described specifically as "anticipatory prior art". I don't see anywhere on the wiki that every claim must be described - it simply says it must sufficiently described.
My apologies I haven't expressed this well. I'm talking about how you have expressed something and the name you have called it. I'll try again.
Wikipedia says if an invention has been described by "prior art" it is invalid, while you say that everything in the patent must be taught and it is called "anticipatory prior art". You took someone up on their use of the phrase "prior art" and said he had to refer to "anticipatory prior art". I think that wikipedia shows otherwise. I don't see anywhere on the wiki as it being described specifically as "anticipatory prior art". I don't see anywhere on the wiki that every claim must be described - it simply says it must sufficiently described.
Ah. Wiki has attempted to dumb things down a bit, but unfortunately, appears to have created confusion. Here's the real definition:
A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as prior art. To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must teach every element of the claim.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Thanks. That does make things clearer in that regard for US law.
The wiki well may be valid as a generalised international version though - would you think so? (a lot of us on /. are not from the US).
Is the Federal Circuit jurisdiction nationwide in the US?
Thanks. That does make things clearer in that regard for US law.
The wiki well may be valid as a generalised international version though - would you think so? (a lot of us on /. are not from the US).
It is, with very slight glosses... Instead of being "obvious", Europe and a few other countries say that something "lacks inventive step". And there are also a few registration-only systems, in which patents are not presumed valid, and no examination occurs. But generally, the various tests for whether something is "new" or whether it is "nonobvious"/"has an inventive step" are identical everywhere. That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago.
Is the Federal Circuit jurisdiction nationwide in the US?
Yes, but it's really specific to patents. Like, patent appeals only go to the Fed. Circ., rather than, say, the 9th Circ. or the 1st Circ. Basically, the numbered circuits are regional; the Federal Circuit is subject matter based. They handle patent appeals, other article I appeals (federal claims, trademarks, government contracts, veterans stuff, etc.), and some weird article III stuff, like natural gas and petroleum .
How did Romulans infiltrate the University of Maryland in 1991?
"That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago."
Is that this one: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/e... ?