The examiner deciding the reexamination made a classic error. Patent claims are supposed to define what is "covered" by the patent, and what is not. So, if you describe a granite wheel mounted on a oak axle, your claim should say whether your patent covers the wheel itself, or merely a granite-on-oak wheel. The examiner in this case bought the patentee's argument that "interactive processing" really means "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user". Now, if the patentee had wanted to claim that the patent covered "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user", the simple solution would have been to put "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user" in the claims, to let everyone know that is what the patent covers. Nothing in "interactive processing" says "ongoing". Processing can interact, then stop, then start again and interact again. An externally launched applet does not have to be "real-time" to perform "interactive processing". Manipulation and control are words to argue about with your wife, not to define a software invention. These words are far too general to help legally define a technical invention. Hey, if you think about it, I'm manipulating and controlling you right now, in real time, in an interactive process. Did I launch an external application to write this? Are these words manipulating your perceptions and thoughts? PINK ELEPHANTS! Are we not interacting? Don't even get started on the meaning of the terms "external" and "application".
Slashdot Mirror
The examiner deciding the reexamination made a classic error. Patent claims are supposed to define what is "covered" by the patent, and what is not. So, if you describe a granite wheel mounted on a oak axle, your claim should say whether your patent covers the wheel itself, or merely a granite-on-oak wheel. The examiner in this case bought the patentee's argument that "interactive processing" really means "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user". Now, if the patentee had wanted to claim that the patent covered "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user", the simple solution would have been to put "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user" in the claims, to let everyone know that is what the patent covers. Nothing in "interactive processing" says "ongoing". Processing can interact, then stop, then start again and interact again. An externally launched applet does not have to be "real-time" to perform "interactive processing". Manipulation and control are words to argue about with your wife, not to define a software invention. These words are far too general to help legally define a technical invention. Hey, if you think about it, I'm manipulating and controlling you right now, in real time, in an interactive process. Did I launch an external application to write this? Are these words manipulating your perceptions and thoughts? PINK ELEPHANTS! Are we not interacting? Don't even get started on the meaning of the terms "external" and "application".