by Dennis Crouch
Adding a bit of drama to the slide-to-unlock debate, Micron has just received its own patent covering a "system and method for controlling user access to an electronic device." U.S. Patent No 8,352,745 issued in January 2013 but claims priority to an original application filed in February 2000 and lists Jim McKeeth as inventor.
Claims:
1. A system comprising:
a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and
a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.
6. The system of claim 1 wherein the user entered geometric pattern is a line.
Apple's slide-to-unlock patents claim priority only to the 2004-2005 timeframe and, although they may be separately patentable, Apple's patents will not serve to invalidate Micron's new patent.
Samsung has a 10-year cross-license deal with Micron. I have not seen reports of any similar deals with Apple, Google\Motorola, or RIM. It will be interesting to see whether Micron holds onto the patent or shifts it to an enforcement company as it did in 2010 in sending 4,000+ patents to John Desmarais for enforcement. Micron is a major manufacturer of computer memory with a market valuation of about $8 billion, perhaps they should just ask for Apple to endorse-over its recent billion dollar patent infringement judgment. One complicating factor is that I suspect Micron is a supplier for all of the potential defendants.
Why does not this Micron 8,352,745 claim read [102] on the [PRE February 2000 filing date] U.S. patent 5,596,656, or provide at least strong 103 prior art?
“As far as I know Apple’s slide to unlock does not store and compare any geometric pattern.”
As claim 6 helpfully points out, a line is also “a geometric pattern”. And you are an examiner, you say?
MM on Jan 31, 2013 at 02:11 PM:
“Do you need a page cite to the case to refresh your memory anon?”
Criminy, MM – that offer was from last month already?
Where is my offered page cite?
And my popcorn.
Jim McKeeth: Even if Apple doesn’t infringe that patent, it clearly is prior art that invalidates their patent.
It’s pretty darn good prior art, that’s for sure.
Was it cited during prosecution of the Apple swipe patent?
Even if Apple doesn’t infringe that patent, it clearly is prior art that invalidates their patent.
I need a comeback? For “Do you live in a cave?”?
You’re more delusional than I thought.
“Many of us evaluate claims for a living and many of us work with a wide variety of technologies outside of our expertise.”
Right. I’ve seen your evaluation of claims outside of your expertise of protein fragments and DNA bits. It consists entirely of declaring anything that uses a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN to be “facially invalid” or “pure g–bage” (as you did in the third post of this thread).
Here’s an idea: Why don’t you demonstrate your “expertise” in the touch screen art by posting an actual invalidity analysis of this claim for all of us to see. Any section(s) of 35 USC you want. But none of your usual hand waving nonsense.
I bet you won’t. Because I know you can’t.
I see that you are now modifying your argument to be one of literal infringement.
Nice.
I still think you lose.
The fact of the matter is, you must draw a line, even with the partial code you provided at 5:50 AM on Feb 1, because, as I have stated, the rest of the story is that the beginning point is somewhere else, and the track is also defined.
You have two points, A and B. You are constrained to begin at A. You end up at B. You are constrained in a track. Any judge, any jury, anywhere will rule against you.
Since infringement is not limited to your new argument of literal infringement, I would welcome your argument to the judge and jury as to how you do not infringe given the facts as presented. Wishful thinking simply will not win you the day.
Sorry, but you don’t win this one.
Your eloquence notwithstanding, to literally infringe the claim a comparison must be made between a line that the user draws and a stored line. In my design-around the line that the user draws is not itself compared to a stored line, no matter how many times you point out that the user actually draws a line. Whether a judge or jury will understand this difference is a different matter entirely.
Dan,
I’m not buying that it does not matter where the slider button is initially. By default (and quite by design) the slider button is initially at a preset point. The end point being the other point of a geometric figure (a line). Quite simply, and as I mentioned, eloquently, the set of facts means that a line must be drawn – no matter what else you might think.
Whatever point (or colinear adjacent set of points) you had started out with, is lost. You have looked at one mere portion of code and forgotten the forest. It matters not what you ONLY look at at the end if you also build in that the start is somewhere else.
Sorry, but you don’t win this one.
It does not matter where the slider button is initially, not does it matter that the user indeed draws a line when dragging the slider to the end of the slider track. What matters is whether or not the user-entered line itself is used as part of the access algorithm.
I submit that infringement may be avoided by not comparing “the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory” as the claim recites. One way to do this is to make sure that the access algorithm ONLY looks at whether or not the slider is at the end of the track, notwithstanding how it got there. This does not involving comparing the user-entered line to a stored line.
And conscience, since you are so tight with MM, ask him to provide the page cite that he offered below (“Do you need a page cite to the case to refresh your memory anon?” – January 31 at 2:11 PM since you are sometimes challenged by finding things on a thread).
What was that about “abandon”…?
LOL
LOL – not answering a question is MM’s schtick.
The answer to the question is Kappos. But that question isn’t really tied to his premise, now is it?
Or is “premise” too big a word for you?
And there is no “bluster” about MM being a liar – I have delivered the actual lies that he has told. Very much unlike him.
You know, for someone attempting to pass themselves off as related to me, you are doing a p1sspoor job of it.
I wonder why?
Actually I don’t.
Uh-oh. Perfectly reasonable question. I better abandon this thread. But wait, that would be too obvious. I probably ought to bluster about how much of a liar MM is, and trot out some stuff about broken arrows and dead shovels. But above all, don’t answer the question …
C’mon MM – you offered a page cite – WHERE IS IT?
For somebody who whines incessantly about “ad hominem attacks” and “insults” you’re more than guilty of such practices.
You apparently don’t know what “ad hominem” means, AJ. I’m chuckling at your feigned ignorance. It’s cute that you try to pretend that this application is really nuanced and super technical. But like many such applications in this sad art unit, no expertise whatsoever is required.
Many of us evaluate claims for a living and many of us work with a wide variety of technologies outside of our expertise. Apparently you don’t, or that’s what you would have us believe now (when it suits you).
There used to be a commenter or two here who took the position that it was somehow improper to “speculate” about the validity of government granted patents. Apparently we were supposed to focus on other controversies (I believe Obama’s birth certificate was questioned here by one of the same proponents of the “mind off” approach to claim analysis). It seems more likely that you subscribe to this view than it does that you “have no idea” what “touch-screen” could mean way way back in the dark ages of 2000.
If somebody wants to pay me to challenge it, I’m available. Otherwise, I don’t really care.
But you care enough to post silly nonsense like “if there was a 112 issue, the Examiner should have raised it.” Uh … no s–t? Really?
I live in a house with my family
HAHAHAHAHAHH!!! Great comeback, man. Anyway, your lack of understanding of touch-screen “technology” is noted. Like I said, it’s really easy to teach yourself about this stuff. Most patent prosecutors like “technology” and are happy to learn about it because it makes them better prosecutors. You must not be a prosecutor. (<--great argument huh? i'm sure it sounds familiar to you)
this thing has been around since February 2000 with no new matter added.
The claims were granted in 2013. Who’s ultimately responsible for claims granted in 2013 by the USPTO when Kappos is the USPTO director?
MM,
Where is my page cite? Do you want me to give you the proper pincite for the Prometheus dead letter quote? While I don’t mind helping you (I have actually provided the exact quote before), I am taking you up on your offer. Where ARE YOU?
LOL – not saying that you hiked up your skirt and ran away, but that article of clothing gathered about your waist is flapping pretty violently as you speed away.
AAA, may I respectfully refer you to your post at Jan 31 2:31pm. I made the point that the patent was directed to a display and processing circuit. It actually did not require a swipe — that is an action, not a piece of hardware as claimed. You disagreed — then. Now you seem to agree.
The claim is directed to hardware. It is not a method claim. It does not actually require a swipe action to infringe.
A person making the hardware is an infringer. A person selling the hardware is an infringer. A person using the hardware is an infringer.
A person selling a display capable of recognizing a swipe might be an infringer under 271(c).
A person selling the processing circuit probably would infringe under 271(c).
A prior art display that could recognize a swipe probably would anticipate. I believe 6 that such systems are notoriously old, as I actually used them in the ’80s.
Are you suggesting that distinctions without a difference are the stuff of many patents being granted under Kappos?
But I like Jeff’s post. It does illustrate that there might be room for some invention in the “swipe.” But just calling for a swipe in the claims without any particular problem being solved by the solution can only lead to patents on the trivial design choice variation.
MM, you forgot the response at 9:42 AM.
MM reading comprehension FAIL.
You do know that when you purposefully select less than the full picture and then smirk at the comments, that you are not in touch with the full reality, right?
Or is that a part of your education? The ability to spin what facts you want to spin, and selectiely ignore the rest of reality?
Come back soon. Your head is waiting. I’ll exchange it for some popcorn.
Understood. I don’t think we need a “penumbra”, however. We’ve already got Section 103. As I’ve said before, at this point in history it is certainly obvious to computerize any manipulation of data that has previously been performed by humans. It may also be obvious to computerize many “new” manipulations of data. But I think there’s room for computerized devices that interact with their users and/or surroundings in surprising new ways.
So far, it seems that the courts agree with my view. We’ll see how it goes.
“Why Dennis allows a hypocritical f#*cking pr!ck such as you to post is a mystery.”
It’s the negative lesson of how not to post.
Plus I think he actually likes seeing MM being handed his head.
You have a funny way of thinking about “educating yourself” MM.
Self-delusion is not education. Reinforcement of your twisted version of reality is not education.
LOL – Jeff is saying there is NO difference, MM.
MM reading comprehension FAIL.
“I disagree. 101 problems arise when ANY ineligible subject matter is effectively protected by the claim.”
Except for the fact that mental steps are both ineligible subject matter (on their own) and ARE effectively protected as being allowable elements of a perfectly eligible claim.
That is one little twist that your pet consistently FAILS to take into account.
Nice imaginary world you inhabit MM.
Let us know when you return to this world and this country and this country’s actual patent laws.
And until then, do take care to not mislead anyone as to what the law really is.
Thanks.
Still waiting for that page cite, MM.
And the popcorn.
For somebody who whines incessantly about “ad hominem attacks” and “insults” you’re more than guilty of such practices. Why Dennis allows a hypocritical f#*cking pr!ck such as you to post is a mystery.
I have no idea what the broadest reasonable interpretation of “touch screen” is/was at the time of the earliest priority date of this patent. And I don’t really give a sh$t either. A primary examiner at the PTO read, searched, and examined the claim and determined it met all the statutory requirements of patentability. He got paid to do that. What purpose would it serve for me to spend my time worrying about it? If somebody wants to pay me to challenge it, I’m available. Otherwise, I don’t really care.
“Do you live in a cave?”
No. I live in a house with my family. You should crawl out of your mom’s basement sometime and give it a try, you sad little creature.
“A couple of days ago, IIRC, you seem to say that the claim required physical actions by a user, rather than being directed to hardware capable of recognizing and responding to such actions.”
I never said any such thing.
“You seem to be up in the air about the issue at this point.”
What “issue” are you talking about? LB asked me whether I thought of the “in a specified direction” recitation is a “structural limitation” as it pertains to the touch screen. My response was, “I don’t think anything about it.”
Jeff: That confuses me. First the SCOTUS says, we don’t have to decide whether the extra steps being less conventional would save the claim from 101 ineligibility.
All they are saying, Jeff, is that those facts were not before them so they are not going to create a per se rule based on different facts. For example, they did not hold that “a claim which recites one step that is ineligible (e.g., a mental step) and one additional novel and non-obvious eligible step is per se eligible.
My view is that such a claim should almost always be deemed eligible. In other words, if you have an novel and non-obvious method that is eligible by itself, it would be difficult to render the claim ineligible merely by tacking on additional mental steps. After all, provided the claim is written using comprising language, it’s still infringed regardless of whether additional mental steps are carried out.
The reason old conventional steps are insufficient to turn an ineligible method (e.g., a method of thinking a new thought) into an eligible method is because otherwise lawful practitioners of the prior art are turned into literal infringers if they should happen to think the new thought. Clearly, that’s not a concern when the eligible steps in the claim are novel and non-obvious.
I think 101 is surmounted by a new finger swishing pattern, because a particular finger swishing pattern doesn’t preempt all finger swishing, although it may be obvious.
I disagree. 101 problems arise when ANY ineligible subject matter is effectively protected by the claim. I think a reasonable argument can be made that any and all “drawings” are ineligible subject matter. The hypothetical claim I discussed in my 11:20 post upthread is ineligible not because it preempts all drawings but because it effectively removes a specific drawing (the ineligible subject matter) from the public domain at least with respect to otherwise lawful practitioners of the prior art (i.e., people who use touch screens).
Jeff: There is no difference whether you call it ignoring ineligible subject matter when deciding 102/103 or ignoring old or obvious subject matter when deciding 101; the outcome is the same.
I’m glad you recognize this fact, Jeff. Can you believe that some people still do not recognize this fact (or pretend that they don’t) even after it was explained to them for years?
The Supreme Court didn’t adopt the government’s approach for the two reasons I noted in my 2:11 comment upthread. But yes, the result is the same.
anon’s conscience When posting, it’s important to make ambiguous references to earlier comments, such as “the phrase I noted.” If you don’t say anything specific, it’s impossible to get pinned down.
It really is anon’s conscience! It’s like a little miracle.
we obviously have some people who sniff claims in isolation of the specification,
Like who, anon? Think carefully before you answer.
I don’t think anything about it. I have no idea if it’s a “structural limitation” as it pertains to the touchscreen. That’s a claim construction exercise. And I have no knowledge of this art, the terminology, the ordinary and accepted meanings of any of terms or jargon or whatever.
LOL.
Do you live in a cave? Heard of the Internet? It’s really not that difficult to educate yourself.
Truly. I had many enjoyable conversations with Vic. Truly and exceptional patent attorney.
Regarding your other question, the Federal Circuit does not seem, even today, to understand “exhaustion.” So the case it does not understand is Univis Lens/Quanta and for that matter, Bobbs Merrill, a copyright analog.
The Federal Circuit seems to think that one can impose contractual use restrictions on the sale of a item and enforce those use restrictions via patent infringement actions with respect to downstream users not in privity. See, e.g., Mallinckrodt.
They have a blind spot regarding exhaustion that affects their decision making even today. Thus, they dismissed exhaustion in the Monsanto v. Bowman, essentially saying that Monsanto can both sell its seeds and control what people do with those seeds post-sale under the patent laws.
AAA, change you tune?
A couple of days ago, IIRC, you seem to say that the claim required physical actions by a user, rather than being directed to hardware capable of recognizing and responding to such actions.
You seem to be up in the air about the issue at this point.
I think the claim is ambiguous myself, and may fail 112, p.2 (or whatever it is called today) because cannot tell from the claim what infringes — is it it hardware or is the actions of the user?
Fair enough. Have a good weekend.
So I think, despite the Court’s quizzical statement at page 18 of the slip opinion suggesting that the conventionality (i.e. oldness) of the additional steps was sufficient grounds for reversal unto itself, the overall thrust of the opinion seems to be that for a claim to fail 101 despite reciting some 101 eligible subject matter, the 101 eligible portion must be both (1) old or obvious AND (2) so essential to any application of the ineligible subject matter that the ineligible subject matter is effectively preempted by the claim.
Applying that 101 analysis to unlocking by finger swishing, I think 101 is surmounted by a new finger swishing pattern, because a particular finger swishing pattern doesn’t preempt all finger swishing, although it may be obvious.
That confuses me. First the SCOTUS says, we don’t have to decide whether the extra steps being less conventional would save the claim from 101 ineligibility. Then they say, the reason why we don’t have to and do not decide is because we have decided – it would not save the claim to only make the steps less conventional, because they also would have to “add something of significance.” We don’t have to decide, and we don’t decide, because we have decided and here is our decision. ??? I take “add something of significance” as alluding to the second part of the court’s earlier statement of why the “instructions” don’t save the claim from 101 ineligibility – they are steps that *must* be taken to apply the law, such that reciting those steps doesn’t save the claim from preempting all applications of the law of nature:
“These instructions add nothing specific to the laws of nature other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously
engaged in by those in the field. ***And*** since they are steps that must be taken in order to apply the laws in question, the effect is simply to tell doctors to apply the law somehow when treating their patients.”
Slip op at 13.
Taken alone, the above passage seems to suggest that to reject/invalidate under 101, you have to show that any eligible portion of the claim is both old/obvious AND preempting. Another passage also suggests that merely finding the patent-eligible elements to be old or obvious is not enough by itself to reject/invalidate a claim:
“The Government, however, suggests in effect that the novelty of a component law of nature may be disregarded when evaluating the novelty of the whole. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 27. But §§102 and 103 say nothing about treating laws of nature as if they were part of the prior art when applying those sections. Cf. Diehr, 450 U. S., at 188 (patent claims “must be considered as a whole”). And studiously ignoring all laws of
nature when evaluating a patent application under §§102 and 103 would ‘make all inventions unpatentable because all inventions can be reduced to underlying principles of nature which, once known, make their implementation obvious.’ [citing Diehr]”
Slip op. at 21-22.
MM, how is the analysis that you are applying here different from the analysis proposed by the government that both you and anon are saying that the Supreme Court rejected? There is no difference whether you call it ignoring ineligible subject matter when deciding 102/103 or ignoring old or obvious subject matter when deciding 101; the outcome is the same. On the other hand, the Supreme Court said this:
“We need not, and do not, now decide whether were the steps at issue here less conventional, these features of the claims would prove sufficient to invalidate them.”
Prometheus slip op at 18. So it is enough to say that the extra steps were conventional (i.e., by themselves, they would fail 102 and/or 103), and we can stop there. Or is it? Here is the very next sentence:
“For here, as we have said, the steps add nothing of significance to the natural laws themselves.”
Id.
I am trying to post a comment about my interpretation of Prometheus on this point, but it won’t let me do it, perhaps because it is too long
In any case, it looks like Graffiti was available for the Apple Newton as of 1994, and on the Newton it worked via on-screen input. I assume the Newton had a password lock–at least there are instructions on the web on how to circumvent it. So as long as Graffiti worked for the password input, you would have precisely the first quote claim: unlocking by recognition of geometric stuff on the screen. And if you set your password to a single space, assuming the Newton allowed that, you’d have the other quoted claim. (But I am not a lawyer.)
One can go even further back to the PARC unistroke system (patent 5,596,656, granted in 1997) which Palm got sued for infringing. It would be very surprising if nobody had a system with on-screen unistroke recognizer and a password input. With unistrokes, a horizontal left swipe is “e” and a horizontal right swipe is “t”, so you can have the swipe claim if you just set the password to “e” or “t”.
As far as I know, no comparison is performed to see if you actually drew a line to a stored image.
The claim is to a “predefined geometric pattern”, not a stored image. The starting point and the end point could be considered a predefined geometric pattern, especially if you’re a plaintiff waving this patent around.
It sounds like the device does compare where you end up to the pre-programmed location where you’re supposed to end up, once you’ve started where you’re supposed to start. You wouldn’t get out of this one on summary judgment, at least.
Looking at the claim, I am wondering if it would actually cover a slide to unlock device.
Take a standard android device. A slider may be provided where you touch a component of the slider and drag it across. The phone unlocks based on the slider reaching the specified position. As far as I know, no comparison is performed to see if you actually drew a line to a stored image. Rather, the system is concerned with the position of the movable component. If you took the slider and drew some sort of squiggle, but still eventually took the slider to the end position, the phone would still unlock.
Thus, as far as I can tell, the standard slide to unlock mechansim does not utilize:
“a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.” as the systems seem to be unconcerned with the actual pattern drawn, and definitely does not compare the actual pattern to a predefined geometric pattern.
Meanwhile, unlock systems such as that in Microsoft Windows 8 may be closer to the claim. However, based on the references posted above, it seems that the patent may have problems being enforced even against this unlocking mechanism.
I don’t think anything about it. I have no idea if it’s a “structural limitation” as it pertains to the touchscreen. That’s a claim construction exercise. And I have no knowledge of this art, the terminology, the ordinary and accepted meanings of any of terms or jargon or whatever. If applicant and his attorney thought it was meaningful, and the examiner thought it was meaningful, and not indefinite or unclear or whatever, I’m not going to debate it. If an accused infringer thinks some hay can be made of it, have at it.
Ever the attempts at being a smart-@$$ and coming up short on the smart, eh IANAE?
Read the thread.
It’s quite obvious.
And since “my conscience” evidently can’t read the thread either (notwithstanding its birth on noting why MM is being “jerked around” at Jan 31, 2013 at 03:32 PM), the specific comment is at Jan 30, 2013 at 08:25 PM.
This cannot be your best trolling, can it?
One would almost assume that Leopold’s obsession has warped into him actually thinking he is a part of me, and IANAE obviously disregards my repeated notices of my voluntarily posting under one pseudonym as a sign of good faith (even inviting Prof. Crouch to verify if he so desired). And yet more youtube snippets? Is this a new tactic? Be as lame as possible? Guys – you would be much better off spending your homework time actually studying the law.
Good luck with that approach, IANAE. When posting, it’s important to make ambiguous references to earlier comments, such as “the phrase I noted.” If you don’t say anything specific, it’s impossible to get pinned down.
The phrase I noted really is already in the claim.
Which phrase would that be, and at what time and under what alias did you note it?
Agreed – and even so, we obviously have some people who sniff claims in isolation of the specification, instead of in light of the specification.
The phrase I noted really is already in the claim.
The section “Field of the Invention” clearly states
The issue here is what the section “Claims” clearly states. One doesn’t sue people for infringing the field of the invention.
That poor man.
I haven’t seen Vic Siber’s name in a while. A super guy.
Bring the popcorn this time.
A subset of the swipe to unlock is the HEY LOOK AT ME AND THIS IS HOW YOU SWIPE TO UNLOCK (no one said the lock had to be tough to figure out).
But that is just a subset.
Other swipes can be much more tricky. Think of all the other lines possible in the plane of the touchpad: all types of vectors – variations in angle, length, start and stop point, direction…
Ok, so I am confused as to why you would need to delve so deeply into the patent application to try and relate it to the simple swipe to unlock method being used by the vast majority of users.
The section “Field of the Invention” clearly states “More particularly, this invention relates to a method and system for authenticating an identity of a user before accessing a computer system.”
The standard swipe-to-unlock method doesn’t do any sort of authentication of a user at all.
In the case where you use the popular pattern unlock system in Android, I can see that the patent might be applied, but it doesn’t apply to a standard swipe-to-unlock system, since that method of access doesn’t involve user authentication.
“This doesn’t require processing a user-entered geometric pattern”
Actually, it does.
You forgot to note that the SliderButton position is initially (and by default) is not at position x, and that the algorithm is written (eloquently) as to capture the end point of the motion, but still requires the start to finish motion.
The algorithm is:
If SliderButton is at position x
let him in
else
don’t
endif
This doesn’t require processing a user-entered geometric pattern (i.e., what the user did to get the slider button to the end of the slide track), nor comparing anything to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.
I didn’t say that they should check the first point in the slider. They only need to check when the slider is at the endpoint in the slide track.
And please provide a page cite for yet another glorious MM self-defeat.
And here is your head.
“ (2) such an approach would turn 101 into a “dead letter””
LOL – try again (and this is not the first time I have made this correction).
The dead letter comment was NOT to 101, but rather it was to the SC’s judicial exception.
If you are going to go all high and mighty, and least get it right.
Not, MM, regarding me personally, I don't have a website or know of one that describes me. However, I was chair of the AIPLA patent law committee when Bob Armitage was president, a member of the board of the AIPLA in the late '90s, member of the Board of the IPO during the '90s, member of the board of the National Inventors Hall of Fame during the same timeframe. There are some folks who know me fairly well, including acting director of the PTO Terry Rae.
I was heavily involved in these organizations at the time because I was the chief IP guy at Seagate for the same timeframe. I was trying to represent my company, and not trying to advance any personal interests. I can tell you that taking an active role in such organizations is a job itself that most folk in private practice and small companies cannot afford.
I can tell you that I particularly respect and admire Bob Armitage, Gary Griswold and Roger Smith. They were and are class acts.
I should also say that I respect and admire Vic Siber, even though he and I do not see eye-to-eye on the Beauregard claims he invented. He and I had a big debate, once upon a time, at the IPO annual meeting. It had something to do with Lotus 123, IIRC. A lot of fun was had by all.
As to your legal question, i will consider it and get back to you.
I can see the court broadly construing the term “touchscreen” to include a “small graffiti input.” So that wouldn’t be a reason to abandon your argument.
“Director Kappos. This is his legacy.”
See? There you go with a baseless accusation and false spinning. You missed what IANAE were discussing – this thing has been around since February 2000 with no new matter added.
You want to reconsider who (and what) you are accusing? Or, as is typical, you want to keep digging with that B$ shovel of yours?
Nice imaginary world you inhabit MM.
Let us know when you return to this world and this country and this country’s actual patent laws.
And until then, do take care to not mislead anyone as to what the law really is.
Thanks.
Nice attempt conscience, but you are not quite there.
Any insight as to why MM goes ballistic – especially as my style is so much more intellectually honest than his style?
btw MM, still waiting for you to explain exactly what lies I have told. I can name your two most notable ones at the drop of a hat, yet all I get (all anyone ever gets) from you is accusations.
Ned, when you say “usually the only thing I add to the discussions here is some case law, usually ancient”, I’m assuming you are talking about –
(1) holdings that are still valid (i.e., not holdings that have been seriously called into question by subsequent SCOTUS decisions, and also not one-line-dicta sentences in a footnote in a concurring opinion that just happens to jive with your opinions on the matter); and
(2) holdings that are very closely associated with the issue that is being discussed.
If so, what in your opinion is the one SCOTUS holding that is still valid (i.e., the SCOTUS has not called into question the holding in a subsequent decision) and that the Fed. Cir. has misunderstood/misinterpreted the most?
Also, if you are comfortable telling people on this message board who you really are (I’m not comfortable, so I’m not going to do that), can you provide a website etc. that has your biography?
In other words, truth hurts.
So there goes your proof.
LOL – thou protests too much.
Touch a nerve? More like I stomped on you. Poor baby – try actually following what I tell you and you won’t be so eplectic.
Not MM, usually the only thing I add to the discussions here is some case law, usually ancient. If you really do not care about whether the Federal Circuit is right or not, and only want to know what the Federal Circuit laws is, then please do ignore me. Otherwise, I typically am a heavy critic of the Federal Circuit and, in turn, am a supporter of the Supreme Court.
MM stands for Malcolm Mooney. He has been a poster here for years. I really enjoy his posts, and look forward to them.
While MM’s posts are normally light on the case law, they are long on common sense. This does him well, as he usually gets things right.
MM is a heavy critic of the PTO for issuing so many obviously bad patents. I generally share that view, but I don’t place all the blame on the PTO. I think the Federal Circuit has to share a portion of the blame. Further, I think, the reason the Supreme Court is intervening so much in recent years is because they have to. The Federal Circuit is way out of control in their view, and in mine.
“Then ignore his posts or, better yet, …”
I think the first recommendation is excellent. I intend to follow it.
“Just don’t expect a lot of detail if he’s commenting from his iPhone. ;)”
Just curious – what’s the deal with the “;)”?
And BTW, my post about taking the comments on this blog too seriously were sincere. I really think your life would be better off if you cooled down a little bit, but this would not be the first time someone has ignored sage advice.
“Dennis can look at the IP addresses and figure out the problem”
I sincerely hope he has better things to do than that. But what exactly do you think Dennis would be able to do after he finds out the IP address? (Careful how you reply to this question – you might remove any little doubt that some may still have about the limited amount of knowledge you have of computer networks.)
anon’s conscience: Don’t jump on me. I’m just telling you how anon justifies this whole sequence of comments.
LOL!
Anyway, reminds me of this (image is rough but stick with it):
link to youtube.com
But “technically challenging” is not part of the patent code.
Not yet. 😉
I do believe, however, that in certain contexts a requirement for solving a technically challenging problem (and describing that solution in the claims) is subsumed by the combined requirements of 101/103/112 (we could call it a “penumbra”). And yes I think one of those contexts is creating a computer (or computer-implemented “system”) with “new functionality.”
I think it’s also true in other contexts where a machine or composition whose capabilities are broadly understood is improved by specific modifications, where the nature of the modifications is circumscribed by inherent features of the machine/ composition.
Computers receive, store, process, and output information. How they do this and what purpose it serves depends on the instructions that are provided to the computer. A new computer distinguished from an old computer merely by describing a new functionality for the computer is per se not a patentable invention. That’s my rough take on the situation.
Well known and well regarded firm.
True, but shoddy work nonetheless. Several of those claims (at least) are completely worthless. I’m frequently on your side with respect to complaining about the poor quality of examination. But I don’t measure the quality of my work based solely on whether I can get something by the examiner.
Tell me, if you don’t mind, what you think about the “in a specified direction” limitation. Is that a structural limitation as pertains to the touchscreen?
I’m not very impressed by the posts from Ned Heller anyways
Then ignore his posts or, better yet, explain why you are not impressed in a way that we can all understand exactly what it is that you deem to be inaccurate.
It’s that easy. Ned’s pretty good at explaining what he means and doesn’t take disagreement personally. Just don’t expect a lot of detail if he’s commenting from his iPhone. 😉
Don’t jump on me. I’m just telling you how anon justifies this whole sequence of comments.
Well, yes, that’s what the claim says, although in this context the difference between “capable of” and “actually configured to” is non-existent.
If by “non-existent” you actually mean “not very significant, in a practical sense” then I don’t disagree – it’s certainly not technically challenging to implement this, given the touchpad and processor. But “technically challenging” is not part of the patent code.
Obviousness is, however. So I can’t dispute the rest of your comment.
anon’s conscience: Authentication and access control are … certainly not the same …
Undoubtedly true. Access control is a broader concept. That’s why devices that allow access by detecting a line movement on a touch screen can fall within the scope of the claims. You do recall that this issue came up in the context of an infringement analysis?
Well known and well regarded firm. If there were any 112 issues with the claim, the examiner should have raised them.
For me the handle “MM” and “anon” are essentially equivalent. I don’t know who “MM” is, and anyone can post with that handle, e.g., see this post.
Right, except you’re a nym-stealing troll and I’m not.
We’ve been through the nym-stealing sockpuppetry phase already. Go ahead and start posting under my name. Every time you do I’ll point it out. If you keep it up, Dennis can look at the IP addresses and figure out the problem.
There’s lots of other letters in the alphabet for you to use. I can recommend a couple if you need help.
at this point a court should and probably would interpret this to require a processing circuit that is actually configured to compare a user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.
Well, yes, that’s what the claim says, although in this context the difference between “capable of” and “actually configured to” is non-existent. It’s pure functional claiming of the software kind: “I imagine a system that can do this allegedly new thing!” and just like that the “problem” is solved.
Are we to believe that prior to the filing date of this claim that devices comprising touch screens coupled to POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAINS were actually incapable of comparing movements on the touch screen with a computer memory? Nobody believes that.
So what we’re left with is the idea that an image could be used as a passkeey. Again, that’s as ancient as signature verification, which predates computers by many centuries.
Using a passkey image as a passkey for a computer? If it’s not anticipated, it’s obvious. And not just kind of obvious. It’s obvious in the same way that playing peek a boo with a baby is obvious even if the baby has a new name.
The system is broken and we have yet another poster child. The sad truth is that these things are being issued in record numbers every Tuesday morning. They just aren’t blogged about because the claims are usually written with a lot more words to hide the banality from the public and (if possible) the Examiner and his/her supervisor.
Regardless of the law, the PTO has an independent duty the public that the claims that issue are clear and understandable.
Sure it does. But what about the prosecuting attorneys? Don’t let them off the hook here – that is some shoddy work.