U.S. Patent Office Preliminarily Invalidates Apple's 'Steve Jobs Patent' on the iPhone

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by dashiel

Speaking of jumping to denounce, you should probably actually, you know read the article and not just parrot what an effusive anti-Apple troll spouts as fact. The patent was not invalidated for prior art, it was invalidated because the USPTO thought it was obvious.

Never trust articles. Do the research yourself and avoid embarassment.

The bounce-back patent was invalidated for multiple reasons, including being anticipated by prior art.

[xyster]

The WWDC 2007 keynote provides a pretty good clue about how "obvious" this patent is: http://youtu.be/6uW-E496FXg?t=16m10s

Note the woots as the scrolling solution was far from obvious back then.

[KnightWRX]

Originally Posted by kdarling

Never trust articles. Do the research yourself and avoid embarassment.

The bounce-back patent was invalidated for multiple reasons, including being anticipated by prior art.

Attachment 382181

So my memory wasn't so faulty. Seeing how Samsung presented prior art for it during trial, I would have been surprised (though it was possible, not having revisited the actual ruling on invalidation) if the USPTO had ignored all prior art and just went with the obviousness part.

----------

Originally Posted by xyster

The WWDC 2007 keynote provides a pretty good clue about how "obvious" this patent is: http://youtu.be/6uW-E496FXg?t=16m10s

Note the woots as the scrolling solution was far from obvious back then.

Again, obviousness is based on people trained in the art, not any random journalists attending a keynote. That the scrolling method didn't seem obvious to journalist doesn't mean it's not to programmers/UI designers/touch interface professionals.

[scottsjack]

Originally Posted by Krazy Bill

Maybe I'm blind but looking at the list of patent holders reaffirms my belief that Apple only hires Males. (Or at least puts only males in high-profile positions).

Seriously... where are all the gals at Apple?

The gals are over at Microsoft coming up with soft, touchy-feely UIs like Metro and using girlie terms like "charms" :-)

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

And it has already been invalidated based on prior art. It's "ingenious", but Apple didn't come up with it :

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...-over-samsung/

Don't patents protect the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea... and not the idea itself?

In other words... the way Apple does it has to be different than the way someone else does it.

Or at least that's how I understood the patent system... you can't patent an idea... only the implementation of an idea.

[Krazy Bill]

Originally Posted by scottsjack

The gals are over at Microsoft coming up with soft, touchy-feely UIs like Metro and using girlie terms like "charms" :-)

Yes, I know. I see the female persuasion throughout the industry - except at Apple.

[kockgunner]

Originally Posted by KnightWRX

So my memory wasn't so faulty. Seeing how Samsung presented prior art for it during trial, I would have been surprised (though it was possible, not having revisited the actual ruling on invalidation) if the USPTO had ignored all prior art and just went with the obviousness part.

----------



Again, obviousness is based on people trained in the art, not any random journalists attending a keynote. That the scrolling method didn't seem obvious to journalist doesn't mean it's not to programmers/UI designers/touch interface professionals.

It was obvious huh? The LG Prada had a scroll bar which doesn't disappear when not in use, no bounce animation, no physics based scrolling, and it didn't even translate the list in the same direction as your finger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPnlS-C_7IE

In the next video:
1:11 - It had a physical unlock button
1:38 - It had no "rolodex" for selecting times and dates but used arrows
2:05 - no on screen keyboard, it used an alphabetic phone pad with T9
- no grid of icons
- it has a clock widget!
- the whole interface seems to run a 15 fps
- no multitouch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBl4d...ture=endscreen

[-AG-]

Originally Posted by Hell0W0rld

Another alternative would be to make patents limited time only, let's say 3 years, that's the time Apple abandons old iphone designes anyway so they and other companies should get enough money back.

Agreed, make the lifespan of patents 3 years (basing this off of the 4 year average usable lifespan of a Mac) then make them open for use.

or in the case of Frand style patents (would need a base to work from set by a court) make them 1 year only that way the company that invents the tech can get their head start but then the inventions such as LTE or WIFI go into the public domain at a pre determined (by the courts) fair fixed amount for all. That way they are not manipulating particular companies for money and more people will license their ideas.

The end result would mean that companies would hopefully push themselves to create new technology to get that 3 year leap forward over their competition.

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by xyster

Note the woots as the scrolling solution was far from obvious back then.

The fact that the mass public hadn't seen something, does not make it non-obvious.

For example, I was using flick scrolling in a field app before the iPhone was shown off. In fact, pretty much any serious touch developer has accidentally invented it You see, the first time a developer programs a list to follow a finger, the test code often lags behind. Voila! Flick scrolling. Most just fix it. Some show it to someone and they love it.

There are LOTS of things the public hasn't seen, but would be wowed by.

--

However, the patent for this thread is not about flick (aka inertial) scrolling. It is a patent about determining if a flick should scroll in just one axis or two.

Like if you flick a web page upward. Your finger obviously doesn't move perfectly vertically, so good scrolling code should determine that if you flicked within a certain angle, it should just default to going vertical or horizontal. Hardly an non-obvious invention.

[psxndc]

Originally Posted by BC2009

And I don't think the patent office can refuse to do a reexamination on a patent.

I want to clear up a couple points of confusion that have sprouted up in this thread. First, BC2009 - great post and you're 100% spot on. This is a non-event. But I want to address this point. The Patent Office CAN deny a reexam if there is no Substantial New Question of Patentability (often shortened to SNQ). In the past, denials rarely happened, but the Patent Office has been pushing back in the last couple years as examination has gotten more thorough (a lot of patents examined in the mid-to-late ninties and early 2000s were let through too easily, so there are more SNQs as prior art comes to light; this hasn't happened as much lately, so there's fewer reexams granted).

As for obviousness vs. prior art as a means for rejecting, they are not mutually exclusive. There are primarily four hurdles a patent application has to overcome to be issued. The numbers below are for the sections of 35 USC they are related to

101 - utility: is it actually possible and useful. You can't patent a perpetual motion machine because it isn't possible. The useful part is the lowest of the low bars.

102 - novelty: is there one piece of prior art out there that does exactly what is claimed. If there is one piece of prior art, the patent claims aren't novel.

103 - obviousness: are there multiple pieces of prior art, that when combined, have all the claimed limitations? If there's one piece of art, the examiner will use 102. If he finds two pieces of prior art that each don't have all the claimed limitations, he will say "a person having ordinary skill in the art will take A from 1 and B from 2 and put together. Doing so would be obvious for that person." So an obviousness determination is BASED on prior art and what a person having ordinary skill in the art would know.

112 - written description/enablement: this actually has a lot of subparts I won't go into, but basically the applicant has to tell you how they did it. There is a lot of wiggle room as to how much is enabling and there's a weird line between where you in effect stop describing the details because it would be obvious how to do it (I can say "and then the blah blah queries a database to retrieve X" and I don't have to describe the actual query because that's obvious, but then isn't the step of querying as part of the combination obvious??).

Under the old reexam rules, you could only submit a request for reexam IF you had a new 102 or 103 rejection. Under the new rules, I believe - I need to look this up - you can submit it under any grounds, but they are vastly limiting the reexam process under the new system in favor of a "post grant review" process.

*whew* sorry for the wall of text. Hopefully that clears up some stuff. Yes, I am a patent attorney.

[Michael Scrip]

Originally Posted by xyster

The WWDC 2007 keynote provides a pretty good clue about how "obvious" this patent is: http://youtu.be/6uW-E496FXg?t=16m10s

Note the woots as the scrolling solution was far from obvious back then.

I often watch that video... and think back to that time in mobile phone history.

It's crazy what Apple was showing off as early as January 2007.

Just 2 days prior to the iPhone announcement... Palm introduced this Treo:



And the Blackberry Curve didn't even get announced until 4 months later... in May 2007:



No wonder people were wowed by the iPhone.

[Myiphone7]

I wouldn't second guess the patent guys. I doubt Steve was the first one to think of this anyway although he was the first to create it.

[petsounds]

I always wondered why the iPhone didn't include a Dictionary app, as most of Jobs' operating systems always had a free one included. Now I see one on the home screen of this patent, and so I guess they had planned to include one and at some point took it out.

More on-thread: the patent system is completely broken, so whether someone has a patent or not is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

[ewlon]

Makes you wonder if Asian guys in trench coats have been meeting with patent office guys in the dark of night, and bulging manila envelopes changing hands.

[TMar]

Originally Posted by WhoDaKat

I'm so sick of this crap. How can they grant a patent, and then nullify it years later? Whats the point of getting the patent in the first place? No one out there should invent anything because people will just steal it from you. Talk about stifling innovation.

Because hindsight is 20/20? Just like how someone got a patent for in-app purchases, really? The ability to purchase an app from within another app.

At the end of the day the patent office is overworked and the people generally are not experts in the in every pert of the field they cover. Companies also compound this problem by going into minute details on the most insignificant things while keeping the big things as vague as possible to make it them as broad and over encompassing as possible.

[dashiel]

Originally Posted by NorEaster

HAHAHAH.... are you kidding? YOU should read the article AND the actual ruling from the USPTO. The patent office states: "The following rejections are utilized by the Examiner below, referencing the proposed prior art listed on pages 23-85 of the Request".

Feel foolish yet? Oh wait...no, you're a fanatic that will efffusively spout how great Apple is and how horrible everyone else is without any shame (or without even the inclination to do some research to back your claims).

Originally Posted by kdarling

Never trust articles. Do the research yourself and avoid embarassment.

The bounce-back patent was invalidated for multiple reasons, including being anticipated by prior art.

Attachment 382181

Gulp. You got me. I’m going to blame the beer. Apologies for the knee-jerk reaction.

[MacDav]

As is well documented: When Steve Jobs was alive he created, through sheer, immense psychic power, what is now known as a "Reality Distortion Field". Sadly,with his death the "Field" has been slowly dissipating and now is finally gone forever. People all over the world (including patent officers) are rubbing their eyes and and seeing a true reality for the first time in many a year. What does this mean for the future of Apple as a company? Nothing, because in a world that is free of reality distortion, Apple still makes great products and will continue to do so. Life will go on, the patent wars will continue and Macrumors will still be a place where tales of Apple products are told.

[yakapo]

Originally Posted by tdream

Boom

head shot.

Where's the popcorn eating emoticon?

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by dashiel

Gulp. You got me. I’m going to blame the beer. Apologies for the knee-jerk reaction.

It's okay. We've all made knee-jerk replies at some time or another!

[lilo777]

Originally Posted by kockgunner

It was obvious huh? The LG Prada had a scroll bar which doesn't disappear when not in use, no bounce animation, no physics based scrolling, and it didn't even translate the list in the same direction as your finger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPnlS-C_7IE

In the next video:
1:11 - It had a physical unlock button
1:38 - It had no "rolodex" for selecting times and dates but used arrows
2:05 - no on screen keyboard, it used an alphabetic phone pad with T9
- no grid of icons
- it has a clock widget!
- the whole interface seems to run a 15 fps
- no multitouch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBl4d...ture=endscreen

LG Prada used Adobe Flash UI which was developed for conventional screens (and not capacitive touch screen). Scroll bar is essential for conventional UI that's why it was there.

[apolloa]

Originally Posted by wikus

Next on the list should be:

- rounded corners
- flat glass surfaces
- bounce back effect

The bounce back was already declared invalid in October. But don't forget the Black and White colours too they patented, also this multitouch patent has been used in cases against Samsung and HTC!!! Is the entire US court and patent system utterly corrupt? Seems like it, or just don't mind the facts they award huge fines, ban competitors products from sales based on patents not fully awarded.....
I suppose someone will now come and say how it's common sense the way it works...

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

Don't patents protect the IMPLEMENTATION of an idea... and not the idea itself?

Correct! You cannot patent just an idea.

In other words... the way Apple does it has to be different than the way someone else does it.

That's the problem that with not only software patents in general, but Apple's patents in particular, because they are incredibly vague. They're basically ideas submitted using fancy words like "heuristics" and other general terms, without giving any unique implementation details.

For example, Apple's patent (8,086,604) primary claim for a search box that looks both on the device and on the web, goes like this:

1. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising: receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device; providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer; searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search; providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching; and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device. - Apple patent

Wow, sure looks impressive, doesn't it. Until you break it down and read it closer. Then, hey wait a minute...

1. A method for locating information in a network using a computer, comprising: receiving by the computer an inputted information descriptor from a user-input device;

Okay, the user types in a search term.

providing said information descriptor received from the user-input device to a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different, predetermined heuristic algorithm corresponding to said respective area to search the area for information that corresponds to the received information descriptor, and the search areas include storage media accessible by the computer;

The search term is given to multiple pieces of code that search different areas, including the network and the disk drives. Typical user desire and typical object-oriented programming.

searching by the heuristic modules, based on the received information descriptor, the respective areas of search using the predetermined heuristic algorithms corresponding to each respective area of search;

And each code section has its own way of looking through the data. Which makes sense. Searching the web is different from searching local files.

providing at least one candidate item of information located by the heuristic modules as a result of said searching; and displaying by the computer a representation of said candidate item of information on a display device.

And you show the results to the user.

What? Hello! My wife, who knows nothing about computers, can come up with an idea like that. In fact, we all do this type of thing in our everyday lives, using different methods to search different information sources.

Where's the implementation details? Where's the non-obviousness?

This kind of vague idea patenting... especially of actions that humans take every day... should not be allowed. Don't get me started. Oh wait. Too late

[iBug2]

I don't really get the prior art argument. Do you have to show that the inventor of the patent definitely had access to the prior art or is it enough that someone somewhere in the world actually invented the same thing which nobody heard about back then?

In my field, which is academics, it doesn't work that way. Two people independently from each other can prove a theorem, yet the theorem will be credited to both of them, not to the one who published it first. Only in the case that one of them published it much earlier and it was pretty well known in those circles, then the journal will say "this has been done before". But there are many examples where a russian mathematician proves something an american mathematician proved 2 years ago or vice versa, yet the theorem belongs to both because it was kinda obvious that the later one didn't hear about the other one while doing his/her work.

[irDigital0l]

Originally Posted by FlatlinerG

At this point, I'm seriously questioning the entire purpose of the patent system.

I started questioning that when Apple patented shapes and page turning.

Apple better start innovating again.

[psxndc]

Originally Posted by iBug2

I don't really get the prior art argument. Do you have to show that the inventor of the patent definitely had access to the prior art or is it enough that someone somewhere in the world actually invented the same thing which nobody heard about back then?

No, the inventor does not have to know about the prior art and rarely does. Just like you can sue someone for patent infringement when they've never heard of your patent, your patent can be invalidated (or be prevented from being granted) by someone you never heard of.