If you can swing it, set up a VPN between all the servicing dish base stations around the venue, so that you can all broadcast on the same SSID, like wifi repeaters do. That way you can have a singe, ubiquitous "FuckOffBT" network with very strong coverage just smothing the whole area, but doing so with perfectly legal energy levels.
Biquad wifi antenna: 15$. (Tools and solder needed apply.) Coax capable wifi card: 30$. Used 2 meter analog satelite television dish: 100$
Broadcasting a rival Wifi signal from a private rooftop to supply free wifi to a closed event, like the olympic games? Priceless.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's BastardCard.
Or, in other words, you don't need to broadcast as loudly, if you concentrate your signal accoustically. Do this as an organized effort from private properties completely surrounding the event, and you can have a huge selection of wifi devices providing long distance services, while staying within power allowances and staying off premesis.
Agreed. It's like going to the store to buy eggs, and ending up having to buy Mary Poppin's magic carpet bag, and spending the next 8 hours pulling out umbrellas, tampons, diapers, palm trees, and Frankfurter (from the movie...) instead, until you either give up in frustration and go to bed, or by some miracle end up pulling out an ostrich egg, and counting your blessings.
Of course, the cable company charges you the "Carpet Bag" price, because it clearly has *EVERYTHING* inside, including a whole lot of what you dont really want, and refuses to sell you just eggs.
The correct solution to this problem is to regionalize the name, just as the OEM did for the product.
Eg, for japanese wikipedia, they should refer to the NES as the Famicom, and the SNES as the super famicom.
The US version should refer the Famicom to the NES, and the SuperFamicom to the SNES.
Both articles should point out the minor design differences found in the regionalized console offerings. (For instance, the famicom has a microphone built into the controller, and a few other neat things the NES does not have.)
It isn't hard to regionalize an HTTP request. BBC does it all the time with iplayer requests, and youtube does too, as des CBS, HBO, and a host of others.
If you are searching form Europe, and look for "sega genesis", it should redirect you to "sega megadrive", with a disambiguation paragraph explaining the action.
Likewise, if in the US, and you look for megadrive, it should direct you to genesis, with a similar explanation.
1) the design patent covers only the appearance of an object. No functional component or feature can be included. (Eg, it being an electronic device. That relates to function, not appearance.)
2) the appearance of an object seeking protection must not be a derivation of any other object design.
3) the type of object (analogousness) is inconsequential when making this determination, because the type of object is related to purpose, and not appearance. (See 1). This is why, in the words of the USPTO, it "need not apply."
I pointed out that the shape of the ipad and other idevices, and the design aesthetics have been in active use for decades prior to apple's used of that design in a tablet product. Plastic picture frames being a poignant example.
That I was able to read, understand, and make this determination defacto shows that I am not an idiot.
Merriam webster defines an idiot as follows:
Main Entry: idÂiÂot Pronunciation: \Ëi-dÄ"-É(TM)t\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiÅtÄ"s one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own â" more at suicide Date: 14th century 1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation 2 : a foolish or stupid person â" idiot adjective
And foolish, as per def #2 as:
Main Entry: foolÂish Pronunciation: \Ëfü-lish\ Function: adjective Date: 13th century 1 : lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion 2 a : absurd, ridiculous b : marked by a loss of composure : nonplussed 3 : insignificant, trifling synonyms see simple â" foolÂishÂly adverb
Given that I have not lost either my composure, used the rules for prior art incorrectly, incorrectly ascribed to design patents what is covered by trade dress and functional patents, nor resorted to petty name-calling and blatant illogical utterances, I must conclude that your assessment is in error.
Unless you can show specifically how my accusation is faulted, other than a simple "I don't agree, and you are stupid for thinking that" without any qualifications, I fail to see how I should in any way retract my statement, nor see any virtue whatsoever in your contrary verbage, given that it does not contain any form of rational argument nor contrary evidence; only subjective opinion, which is in direct contradiction with established case law, as evidenced by the supplied rules.
Since I have given you ample opportunity to demonstrate the profound intellect and store of knowledge you have been conflating yourself to posess, and have consistently failed to do so at every turn, I must conclude that you do not in fact posess such knowledge, and are simply being contrarian out of personal preference toward reality.
This falls victim to webster's definition of foolish, and hilariously enough, their definition of idiot by associsiation.
This would indicate that you are both a fool, and an idiot as well as a hipocrite, as demonstrated by your behavior and verbage.
Unless you supply a real, vettable contradictory piece of evidence to disqualify the picture frame prior art, I will ignore any further specious and unsupportable rhetoric you might muster, since you have clearly demonstrated the inferiority of your position.
Look, the rules clearly point out that the design patent is for the *aesthetic design*, and not for any functional part of the object. It covers ONLY THE APPEARANCE.
This has been shown, linked to, and quoted to you several times now.
The same rules say that prior art for such an appearance does *NOT* need to be analogous to the object for which the design patent is being applied for.
Those same rules openly state that to be applicable for protection, the design *MUST* be wholly original, and cannot be said to be a derivation or adaptation of *ANY PREVIOUS DESIGN*, as determined by ordinary people.
I pointed out that the design in question is a clear derivation from the design of a plethora of prior products that are more than 1 year older than the iPad and iPhone. That makes the objects prior art under the definitions supplied by the USPTO.
Now, since you insist that I am unable to understand what I am reading, despite being a native english speaker, and the not too difficult wording of the USPTO rules, PLEASE, By *all means*,
----- The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, the reference "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997).
The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous arts whe evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average observer" under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need not be raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art."
Please read the information freely available from the USPTO.
A device must be sufficiently novel from existing products of similar appearance (and need not be analogous in function!) That an "average observer" could not be said to conclude that the design is a derivation of existing forms.
I pointed out how there were existing forms, and how the derivation could have occured.
The number of times you state an incorrect declaration does not alter the state of its factuality. You could "point this out" millions of times, it still won't make the USPTO's requirements change to suit your opinion.
No, it certainly is not an ad hominem. It is merely false.
The USPTO itself weighs in, stating that prior art need not belong to "analogous items".
I have pointed this out twice now, but the third time's the charm.
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs w average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, th "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous a evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average o under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art.
I find it amusing that you would say that, given that established caselaw and precident for determining applicability for protection and the grounds for application rejection more closely parallel GP's view than yours, according to the cases cited by the USPTO concerning the applicability and enforcement of design patents.
For reference, what exactly *DO* you think design patents are for?
The intended enforcement class is for a completely novel physical shape or image feature, which is not manifest in *any* other product, and which is not considered to be a derivative of other existing forms by an "average observer", which has "little or no prior knowledge of the art."
At least according to the USPTO anyway.
___ The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs w average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, th "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous a evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average o under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art." ____
I have seen you post repeatedly on this, claiming that a design patent requires specific type of prior art, of a specific subclass in order to be invalidated. This is simply false.
From the USPTO.
35 U.S.C. 172 Right of priority. The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 of this title and the time specified in section 102(d) shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) of this title shall not apply to designs. The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F.2d 942, 133 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2d at 943, 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the factual inquiry in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, the reference "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous arts when evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average observer" under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need not be raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the claimed design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art." When a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentableover prior art, those features of the design which are functional and/or hidden during end use may not be relied upon to support patentability. In re Cornwall, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 57 (CCPA 1956); Jones v. Progress Ind. Inc., 119 USPQ 92 (D. R.I. 1958). Further, in a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. 102, mere differences in functional considerations do not negatea finding of anticipation when determining design patentability. Black & Decker, Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 636 F.2d 1193, 231 USPQ 252 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
It is not necessary for the examiner to cite or apply prior art to show that functional and/or hidden features are old in the art as long as the examiner has properly relied on evidence to support the prima facie lack of ornamentality of these individual features. If applicant wishes to rely on functional or hidden features as a basis for patentability, the same standard for establishing ornamentality under 35 U.S.C. 171 must be applied before these features can be given any patentable weight. See MPEP Â 1504.01(c). In evaluating a statutory bar based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b), the experimental use exception to a statutory bar for public use or sale (see MPEP Â 2133.03(e)) does not usually apply for design patents. See In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, Tone Brothers, Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1200, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that "experimentation directed to functional features of a product also containing an ornamental design may negate what otherwise would be considered a public use within the meaning of section 102(b)." See MPEP Â 2133.03(e)(6). Registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published. (See Ex parte Lancaster, 151 USPQ 713 (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Marinissen, 155 USPQ 528 (Bd. App. 1966); Appeal No. 239-48, Decided April 30, 1965, 151 USPQ 711, (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Appeal decided September 3, 1968, 866 O.G. 16 (Bd. App. 1966). The basis of this practice is that if the foreign applicant has received the protection offered in the foreign country, no matter what the protection is call
I used to own a vfx-1. I have astigmatism really bad, and different levels of correction are required for each eye. As a consequence I could *NEVER* get a clear image through the HUD, and had eyestrain in under 5 minutes. (That and the 256 color palleted texture mode limitation of the VFC it used. Blech.)
This device looks like it will have similar focus issues.
Now for the stupid questions.
Google's project glass is an augmented reality system. Simply add an occulter in front of the eyes, ad IR illumination inside the occulter so that it can still track eye movements and focus, and use the augmented reality overly projection system to paint the whole image on each eye.
Why can't they do that instead of using LCD displays of such nasty resolutions, with fixed focus optics?
Why should I back occulus instead of waiting for project glass, and doing a fun hardware hack for fun and profit?
What apple showed was that there was demand for that form factor. They did not invent that form factor.
They did useful marketing research about their customers, and provided a more attractive offering that their research showed to be more desirable.
They sold like hotcakes, because the devices did not clash with the furniture and look tacky.
Samsung paid notice to this revelation: they were not properly servicing the demands of their customers. They then implemented their own version of that design class. Their tablets sold like hotcakes too.
To simplify:
Let's say that gamers like things that look black and sexy.
All the computers on the market are marketed in drab 1970s wood tone. This decision is based on outdated trend data. There are other products on the market that are black and sexy. Toasters, blenders, television sets.... just not computers.
They really want a computer that is black and sexy. They don't really like wood tone.
Companies continue to sell wood tone computers, regardless of this fact, because they sell sufficiently well that investing in new customer satisfaction research is not justified.
A new computer company tries the "repeatedly flopped" "portable computer" concept, but sells it in sexy black, after looking into what their customers really want.
They sell like hotcakes.
Computer makers stop selling woodtone boxes, and sell black and sexy.
The now successful computer company who revolutionized the market did not invent anything new.
He outright called me an idiot, with the intent that my being one negated any value to my argument concerning the picture frame connection. I called him on it.
If I somehow replied to the wrong post, you have my sinscere apologies.
Confusing a product with another, counterfiet product is a trade dress violation, and is completely unrelated to design patent protection.
That would be confusing "arachnaboy" for spiderman, because it's an action figure, dressed in red and blue, with spiderweb motifs, in a blue and red blister pack. The product clearly tries to confuse the buyer into thinking it is the same, and stomps on intellectual property.
The samsung galaxy tablet does not claim to be an ipad. It is visually different from an ipad. If it were packaged in a similar box, it would be a trade dress violation, but it is not a counterfiet ipad. It is a fully competing product that appeals to the same aesthetic design class.
A patent is for a radically new aesthetic choice.
Eg: "ultramodern", "utilitarian", and "apple".
Where "apple" is clearly distinct from the first two, and defines the aesthetic character of a unique and special product like no other.
The problem is that "apple" is not an interior design category, and the design of apple's devices fits squarely within the first two, right along with brightly colored ergonomic chairs, white carpets on smooth wood floors, and abstract minimalist prints in rounded cornered black frames on the walls. That is because the aesthetic character of the device was tailored to that specific market.
Was it an avante guard choice? Certainly. Was it novel and new? No. Was it effective marketing? Clearly.
The issue here is if we want to permit apple to have a monopoly on that aesthetic choice, or if we want more selection. As a consumer, I favor selection.
Do I think apple should get trade dress protection? Yes.
Do I think their design is innovative? No. Does it deserve patent protection? No. Did samsung copy the design? Probably.
Then again, I think samsung should get away with it. They were marketing a popular and generic form factor, that fits with current "ultramodern" and "utilitarian" design choices. This is likely the same marketing decision apple used when *they* chose the form factor: it will look good in an apartment when placed with similarly themed objects. It will look like it belongs. Ultramodern and utilitarian are decorating themes commonly used in dense urban apartments, due to the sleek appearance and inexpensive pricetag. It caters to their target demographic. Denying samsung the right to also use this aesthetic style in their devices is not appropriate.
Often the burden of proof for obviousness is "the opinion of a lay person of that field." I am not a patent lawyers, but I have dealt with framing images and prints, and have been for years.
The aesthetic layout of the ipad looks exactly like a cropped, matted, and framed image in an inexpensive frame.
Claiming that this is new and novel is fundementally false. Images have been framed like that for decades before apple even considered making a tablet. This is evidenced by the wide number of products that incorporate that style, which is surprisingly popular for "ultramodern" and "utilitarian" themed apartments and interior decorating themes.
Apple has merely incorporated those design elements into yet another product that makes use of it.
They do not have any more right to claim it as new, novel, and deserving of protection than does any of the manufacturers of the exhibited products, because it is none of those things, the original implementer of the design is anonymous, and the theme is considered generic.
You might even get hits for similar products with the search string "generic utilitarian theme frame".
It was listed on that site over a year ago. Its fair to say it has been on the market awhile. It is arguable if it was designed due to the popularity of the ipad and iphone, but it has existed in the market as a digital device and as far as I know, the manufacturer has not been sued for at least a whole year.
Again, the product was returned on the fist page of image results.
It could very easily exist in the form of a digital picture frame, which would then look very much like an idevice, and be a digital device.
Claiming "but not in a digital device!" Is like claiming "On the internet!" Or "On a computer!" In a patent for something done commonly for years, as if it were not obvious.
While comonly granted, such protections should not have been enacted.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can swing it, set up a VPN between all the servicing dish base stations around the venue, so that you can all broadcast on the same SSID, like wifi repeaters do. That way you can have a singe, ubiquitous "FuckOffBT" network with very strong coverage just smothing the whole area, but doing so with perfectly legal energy levels.
Biquad wifi antenna: 15$. (Tools and solder needed apply.)
Coax capable wifi card: 30$.
Used 2 meter analog satelite television dish: 100$
Broadcasting a rival Wifi signal from a private rooftop to supply free wifi to a closed event, like the olympic games? Priceless.
There are some things money can't buy. For everything else, there's BastardCard.
Or, in other words, you don't need to broadcast as loudly, if you concentrate your signal accoustically. Do this as an organized effort from private properties completely surrounding the event, and you can have a huge selection of wifi devices providing long distance services, while staying within power allowances and staying off premesis.
From this? Never.
An ansible needs to transmit information to outside its light cone.
You can only do that in a godel spacetime, or similar spacetime. Our universe does not appear to support that.
Also, if you create an ansible, wave goodbye to both self-determinism as a rational belief, and to causality as you know it.
Agreed. It's like going to the store to buy eggs, and ending up having to buy Mary Poppin's magic carpet bag, and spending the next 8 hours pulling out umbrellas, tampons, diapers, palm trees, and Frankfurter (from the movie...) instead, until you either give up in frustration and go to bed, or by some miracle end up pulling out an ostrich egg, and counting your blessings.
Of course, the cable company charges you the "Carpet Bag" price, because it clearly has *EVERYTHING* inside, including a whole lot of what you dont really want, and refuses to sell you just eggs.
It could be soy!
But, if he KNOWS that you know he knows you know he is lieing, he's got the edge!
No silly. In true slashdot tradition, it would be Natily Portman dressed only in a crispy bacon bikini, slathering herself in hot grits.
Seriousy, how many billions of dollars would isreal and the US owe AC/DC and I think capitol records for unauthorized distribution and exhibition?
The correct solution to this problem is to regionalize the name, just as the OEM did for the product.
Eg, for japanese wikipedia, they should refer to the NES as the Famicom, and the SNES as the super famicom.
The US version should refer the Famicom to the NES, and the SuperFamicom to the SNES.
Both articles should point out the minor design differences found in the regionalized console offerings. (For instance, the famicom has a microphone built into the controller, and a few other neat things the NES does not have.)
It isn't hard to regionalize an HTTP request. BBC does it all the time with iplayer requests, and youtube does too, as des CBS, HBO, and a host of others.
If you are searching form Europe, and look for "sega genesis", it should redirect you to "sega megadrive", with a disambiguation paragraph explaining the action.
Likewise, if in the US, and you look for megadrive, it should direct you to genesis, with a similar explanation.
That is the correct way to address it.
1) the design patent covers only the appearance of an object. No functional component or feature can be included. (Eg, it being an electronic device. That relates to function, not appearance.)
2) the appearance of an object seeking protection must not be a derivation of any other object design.
3) the type of object (analogousness) is inconsequential when making this determination, because the type of object is related to purpose, and not appearance. (See 1). This is why, in the words of the USPTO, it "need not apply."
I pointed out that the shape of the ipad and other idevices, and the design aesthetics have been in active use for decades prior to apple's used of that design in a tablet product. Plastic picture frames being a poignant example.
That I was able to read, understand, and make this determination defacto shows that I am not an idiot.
Merriam webster defines an idiot as follows:
Main Entry: idÂiÂot
Pronunciation: \Ëi-dÄ"-É(TM)t\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French ydiote, from Latin idiota ignorant person, from Greek idiÅtÄ"s one in a private station, layman, ignorant person, from idios one's own, private; akin to Latin suus one's own â" more at suicide
Date: 14th century
1usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation
2 : a foolish or stupid person
â" idiot adjective
And foolish, as per def #2 as:
Main Entry: foolÂish
Pronunciation: \Ëfü-lish\
Function: adjective
Date: 13th century
1 : lacking in sense, judgment, or discretion
2 a : absurd, ridiculous b : marked by a loss of composure : nonplussed
3 : insignificant, trifling
synonyms see simple
â" foolÂishÂly adverb
Given that I have not lost either my composure, used the rules for prior art incorrectly, incorrectly ascribed to design patents what is covered by trade dress and functional patents, nor resorted to petty name-calling and blatant illogical utterances, I must conclude that your assessment is in error.
Unless you can show specifically how my accusation is faulted, other than a simple "I don't agree, and you are stupid for thinking that" without any qualifications, I fail to see how I should in any way retract my statement, nor see any virtue whatsoever in your contrary verbage, given that it does not contain any form of rational argument nor contrary evidence; only subjective opinion, which is in direct contradiction with established case law, as evidenced by the supplied rules.
Since I have given you ample opportunity to demonstrate the profound intellect and store of knowledge you have been conflating yourself to posess, and have consistently failed to do so at every turn, I must conclude that you do not in fact posess such knowledge, and are simply being contrarian out of personal preference toward reality.
This falls victim to webster's definition of foolish, and hilariously enough, their definition of idiot by associsiation.
This would indicate that you are both a fool, and an idiot as well as a hipocrite, as demonstrated by your behavior and verbage.
Unless you supply a real, vettable contradictory piece of evidence to disqualify the picture frame prior art, I will ignore any further specious and unsupportable rhetoric you might muster, since you have clearly demonstrated the inferiority of your position.
(Laughter)
Look, the rules clearly point out that the design patent is for the *aesthetic design*, and not for any functional part of the object. It covers ONLY THE APPEARANCE.
This has been shown, linked to, and quoted to you several times now.
The same rules say that prior art for such an appearance does *NOT* need to be analogous to the object for which the design patent is being applied for.
Those same rules openly state that to be applicable for protection, the design *MUST* be wholly original, and cannot be said to be a derivation or adaptation of *ANY PREVIOUS DESIGN*, as determined by ordinary people.
I pointed out that the design in question is a clear derivation from the design of a plethora of prior products that are more than 1 year older than the iPad and iPhone. That makes the objects prior art under the definitions supplied by the USPTO.
Now, since you insist that I am unable to understand what I am reading, despite being a native english speaker, and the not too difficult wording of the USPTO rules, PLEASE, By *all means*,
Educate me.
Ask and you shall receive.
-----
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, the reference "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997).
The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous arts whe evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average observer" under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need not be raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art."
That is not how design patents work.
Please read the information freely available from the USPTO.
A device must be sufficiently novel from existing products of similar appearance (and need not be analogous in function!) That an "average observer" could not be said to conclude that the design is a derivation of existing forms.
I pointed out how there were existing forms, and how the derivation could have occured.
The number of times you state an incorrect declaration does not alter the state of its factuality. You could "point this out" millions of times, it still won't make the USPTO's requirements change to suit your opinion.
No, it certainly is not an ad hominem. It is merely false.
The USPTO itself weighs in, stating that prior art need not belong to "analogous items".
I have pointed this out twice now, but the third time's the charm.
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs w average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, th "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous a evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average o under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art.
I find it amusing that you would say that, given that established caselaw and precident for determining applicability for protection and the grounds for application rejection more closely parallel GP's view than yours, according to the cases cited by the USPTO concerning the applicability and enforcement of design patents.
For reference, what exactly *DO* you think design patents are for?
The intended enforcement class is for a completely novel physical shape or image feature, which is not manifest in *any* other product, and which is not considered to be a derivative of other existing forms by an "average observer", which has "little or no prior knowledge of the art."
At least according to the USPTO anyway.
___
The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs w average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the fact in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, th "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 188 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous a evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average o under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art."
____
I have seen you post repeatedly on this, claiming that a design patent requires specific type of prior art, of a specific subclass in order to be invalidated. This is simply false.
From the USPTO.
35 U.S.C. 172 Right of priority. The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 of this title and the time specified in section 102(d) shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) of this title shall not apply to designs. The standard for determining novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 was set forth by the court in In re Bartlett, 300 F.2d 942, 133 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1962). "The degree of difference [from the prior art] required to establish novelty occurs when the average observer takes the new design for a different, and not a modified, already-existing design." 300 F.2d at 943, 133 USPQ at 205 (quoting Shoemaker, PatentsFor Designs, page 76). In design patent applications, the factual inquiry in determining anticipation over a prior art reference is the sameas in utility patent applications. That is, the reference "must be identical in all material respects." Hupp v. Siroflex of America Inc., 122 F.3d 1456, 43 USPQ2d 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The "average observer" test does not require that the claimed design and the prior art be from analogous arts when evaluating novelty. In re Glavas, 230 F.2d 447, 450, 109 USPQ 50, 52 (CCPA 1956). Insofar as the "average observer" under 35 U.S.C. 102 is not charged with knowledge of any art, the issue of analogousness of prior art need not be raised. This distinguishes 35 U.S.C. 102 from 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which requires determination of whether the claimed design would have been obvious to "a person of ordinary skill in the art." When a claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being unpatentableover prior art, those features of the design which are functional and/or hidden during end use may not be relied upon to support patentability. In re Cornwall, 230 F.2d 447, 109 USPQ 57 (CCPA 1956); Jones v. Progress Ind. Inc., 119 USPQ 92 (D. R.I. 1958). Further, in a rejection of a claim under 35 U.S.C. 102, mere differences in functional considerations do not negatea finding of anticipation when determining design patentability. Black & Decker, Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 636 F.2d 1193, 231 USPQ 252 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
It is not necessary for the examiner to cite or apply prior art to show that functional and/or hidden features are old in the art as long as the examiner has properly relied on evidence to support the prima facie lack of ornamentality of these individual features. If applicant wishes to rely on functional or hidden features as a basis for patentability, the same standard for establishing ornamentality under 35 U.S.C. 171 must be applied before these features can be given any patentable weight. See MPEP Â 1504.01(c). In evaluating a statutory bar based on 35 U.S.C. 102(b), the experimental use exception to a statutory bar for public use or sale (see MPEP Â 2133.03(e)) does not usually apply for design patents. See In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988). However, Tone Brothers, Inc. v. Sysco Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1200, 31 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1994) held that "experimentation directed to functional features of a product also containing an ornamental design may negate what otherwise would be considered a public use within the meaning of section 102(b)." See MPEP Â 2133.03(e)(6). Registration of a design abroad is considered to be equivalent to patenting under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and 35 U.S.C. 102(d), whether or not the foreign grant is published. (See Ex parte Lancaster, 151 USPQ 713 (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Marinissen, 155 USPQ 528 (Bd. App. 1966); Appeal No. 239-48, Decided April 30, 1965, 151 USPQ 711, (Bd. App. 1965); Ex parte Appeal decided September 3, 1968, 866 O.G. 16 (Bd. App. 1966). The basis of this practice is that if the foreign applicant has received the protection offered in the foreign country, no matter what the protection is call
I used to own a vfx-1. I have astigmatism really bad, and different levels of correction are required for each eye. As a consequence I could *NEVER* get a clear image through the HUD, and had eyestrain in under 5 minutes. (That and the 256 color palleted texture mode limitation of the VFC it used. Blech.)
This device looks like it will have similar focus issues.
Now for the stupid questions.
Google's project glass is an augmented reality system. Simply add an occulter in front of the eyes, ad IR illumination inside the occulter so that it can still track eye movements and focus, and use the augmented reality overly projection system to paint the whole image on each eye.
Why can't they do that instead of using LCD displays of such nasty resolutions, with fixed focus optics?
Why should I back occulus instead of waiting for project glass, and doing a fun hardware hack for fun and profit?
What apple showed was that there was demand for that form factor. They did not invent that form factor.
They did useful marketing research about their customers, and provided a more attractive offering that their research showed to be more desirable.
They sold like hotcakes, because the devices did not clash with the furniture and look tacky.
Samsung paid notice to this revelation: they were not properly servicing the demands of their customers. They then implemented their own version of that design class. Their tablets sold like hotcakes too.
To simplify:
Let's say that gamers like things that look black and sexy.
All the computers on the market are marketed in drab 1970s wood tone. This decision is based on outdated trend data. There are other products on the market that are black and sexy. Toasters, blenders, television sets.... just not computers.
They really want a computer that is black and sexy. They don't really like wood tone.
Companies continue to sell wood tone computers, regardless of this fact, because they sell sufficiently well that investing in new customer satisfaction research is not justified.
A new computer company tries the "repeatedly flopped" "portable computer" concept, but sells it in sexy black, after looking into what their customers really want.
They sell like hotcakes.
Computer makers stop selling woodtone boxes, and sell black and sexy.
The now successful computer company who revolutionized the market did not invent anything new.
They simply did proper marketing.
The same is true of apple.
Uhm? Ok?
I replied to natasrevol, not to you...
He outright called me an idiot, with the intent that my being one negated any value to my argument concerning the picture frame connection. I called him on it.
If I somehow replied to the wrong post, you have my sinscere apologies.
I guess you can add "ad hominem" to your list of used logical fallacies.
Do you have a specific counter argument that is not also a verbal slur to bring to the table, or is this debate over?
Confusing a product with another, counterfiet product is a trade dress violation, and is completely unrelated to design patent protection.
That would be confusing "arachnaboy" for spiderman, because it's an action figure, dressed in red and blue, with spiderweb motifs, in a blue and red blister pack. The product clearly tries to confuse the buyer into thinking it is the same, and stomps on intellectual property.
The samsung galaxy tablet does not claim to be an ipad. It is visually different from an ipad. If it were packaged in a similar box, it would be a trade dress violation, but it is not a counterfiet ipad. It is a fully competing product that appeals to the same aesthetic design class.
A patent is for a radically new aesthetic choice.
Eg: "ultramodern", "utilitarian", and "apple".
Where "apple" is clearly distinct from the first two, and defines the aesthetic character of a unique and special product like no other.
The problem is that "apple" is not an interior design category, and the design of apple's devices fits squarely within the first two, right along with brightly colored ergonomic chairs, white carpets on smooth wood floors, and abstract minimalist prints in rounded cornered black frames on the walls. That is because the aesthetic character of the device was tailored to that specific market.
Was it an avante guard choice? Certainly.
Was it novel and new? No.
Was it effective marketing? Clearly.
The issue here is if we want to permit apple to have a monopoly on that aesthetic choice, or if we want more selection. As a consumer, I favor selection.
Do I think apple should get trade dress protection? Yes.
Do I think their design is innovative? No.
Does it deserve patent protection? No.
Did samsung copy the design? Probably.
Then again, I think samsung should get away with it. They were marketing a popular and generic form factor, that fits with current "ultramodern" and "utilitarian" design choices. This is likely the same marketing decision apple used when *they* chose the form factor: it will look good in an apartment when placed with similarly themed objects. It will look like it belongs. Ultramodern and utilitarian are decorating themes commonly used in dense urban apartments, due to the sleek appearance and inexpensive pricetag. It caters to their target demographic. Denying samsung the right to also use this aesthetic style in their devices is not appropriate.
Often the burden of proof for obviousness is "the opinion of a lay person of that field." I am not a patent lawyers, but I have dealt with framing images and prints, and have been for years.
The aesthetic layout of the ipad looks exactly like a cropped, matted, and framed image in an inexpensive frame.
Claiming that this is new and novel is fundementally false. Images have been framed like that for decades before apple even considered making a tablet. This is evidenced by the wide number of products that incorporate that style, which is surprisingly popular for "ultramodern" and "utilitarian" themed apartments and interior decorating themes.
Apple has merely incorporated those design elements into yet another product that makes use of it.
They do not have any more right to claim it as new, novel, and deserving of protection than does any of the manufacturers of the exhibited products, because it is none of those things, the original implementer of the design is anonymous, and the theme is considered generic.
You might even get hits for similar products with the search string "generic utilitarian theme frame".
A simple google image search for "digital picture frame rounded corners" yeilded this product on page one.
oh look. A digital picture frame.
It was listed on that site over a year ago. Its fair to say it has been on the market awhile. It is arguable if it was designed due to the popularity of the ipad and iphone, but it has existed in the market as a digital device and as far as I know, the manufacturer has not been sued for at least a whole year.
Again, the product was returned on the fist page of image results.
It could very easily exist in the form of a digital picture frame, which would then look very much like an idevice, and be a digital device.
Claiming "but not in a digital device!" Is like claiming "On the internet!" Or "On a computer!" In a patent for something done commonly for years, as if it were not obvious.
While comonly granted, such protections should not have been enacted.