Apple Receives Patent for 3D Gesture Control on Touchscreen Devices

[sransari]

Ugh. This is NOT something that should be patentable. Gestures are not patentable. In all seriousness, I myself thought of this exact idea like 5 years ago. The patent system is insane.

I'm sure you examined the prosecution history and the claims of this application to come to the conclusion that this shouldn't be patentable.

Also, you're right that gestures are not patenetable. That's why the claims do not recite gestures, only a device that receives a gesture input. The device is being claimed, not the gesture itself.

All this being said, I am surprised at the broadness of claim 1. I didn't have a chance to the read the specification in detail, but even assuming the spec fully describes the claimed invention, I am surprised that a claim that broad was allowed, since the limitations in the spec are not to be read into the claims.

I would think there would have to be SOME additional limitation, such as a subcomponent or device that could do the "measuring a distance between the finger or the pointing device and the surface of the display." None of the dependents seem to have any limitation to support the measuring of the distance.

Claim 5 also doesn't seem to have any support in the claim itself "imparting an initial speed to the representation of the 3D object according to a force represented by the gesture input."

----------

That claim doesn't say nothing about the proximity sensor, still waiting about it. Try again.

You're exactly right...see my note above. And a great example of how people make stuff up and try to read it into the claim

----------

it does. keep reading the rest of the claim for this device... scroll down to where they discuss the appratus used to detect the movement...

the sensor module comprises a touch sensor and a proximity sensor, the touch sensor detecting touch inputs and gesture inputs having movements along the surface, the proximity sensor in combination with the touch sensor detecting gesture inputs having the perpendicular movement components.

...there ya go, pal. youve lost.

I think the discussion was about claim 1, and not claim 28...which roots back to claim 25. So you're not even discussing the same claim...

 

[Piggie]

The technology that makes it happen IS patentable. This doesn't happen just because you think about it. You have to develop the physical technology to make it work and that's patentable. And if Apple makes it work and it becomes popular you can bet your last dollar Samesung will copy it.

Sorry, I didn't think Apple MADE anything?

The simply USED what other companies had developed, and at very best, requested some custom tweaks to someone elses technology.

The best Apple can MAKE is a case to put the parts in.

 

[mdelvecchio]

You're exactly right...see my note above. And a great example of how people make stuff up and try to read it into the claim

absurd. nobody's making anything up -- read thru all the claims and summary copy...the claims is for a touchscreen device w/ proximity sensors to detect gestures in tandem w/ touch:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...8,514,221.PN.&OS=PN/8,514,221&RS=PN/8,514,221

...i swear it's like some of you people would argue we arent breathing air.

 

[Oletros]

it does. keep reading the rest of the claim for this device... scroll down to where they discuss the appratus used to detect the movement...

the sensor module comprises a touch sensor and a proximity sensor, the touch sensor detecting touch inputs and gesture inputs having movements along the surface, the proximity sensor in combination with the touch sensor detecting gesture inputs having the perpendicular movement components.

...there ya go, pal. youve lost.

You have to learn how to read the patent claims.

Ps. A secret, the claim 28 doesn't say that the the touch sensor and the proximity sensors form part of the same surface, it say that a sensor module is comprised of a touch sensor AND a proximity sensor.



----------

I think the discussion was about claim 1, and not claim 28...which roots back to claim 25. So you're not even discussing the same claim...

Dependent claims are funny, people read too much on them, perhaps the claim 27 says that the storage part is also integrated in the touchscreen sensor

 

[mdelvecchio]

I think the discussion was about claim 1, and not claim 28...which roots back to claim 25. So you're not even discussing the same claim...

which bubbles back upwards itself.

all the claims are for the same exact patent ID, 8232990, which is for the single invention in question.

youre trying to move the goalposts -- this is ONE patent, which is described via multiple, granular claims (1-31). all dealing with this one invention.

the sensors are in the display surface. it is not a camera -- which was the original assertion, that this was a ripoff of the MS Kinect.

 

[tgi]

Amazing things to come!

 

[sransari]

First of all, its all about the implementation. People like you think a patent is just about an idea, which is incredibly frustrating how much people misunderstand the difference between generic ideas and implementation. Ideas are meaningless without execution. Thats what the patent claims are for. You don't get a patent for just an idea. You have to figure out HOW. You have to make explicit claims for your method, what is needed to accomplish the idea. THOSE ideas, the ideas that are necessary to achieve the larger vision, are what gets patented.

As Edison said, "1% inspiration, 99% perspiration"

Well said, but even so, the USPTO sometimes requires the claim to have the limitations that better limit and narrow the concept towards what is disclosed since limitations in the specifications generally are not to be read into the claims. So that's why I am still a little surprised at the broadness of claim 1.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Ps. A secret, the claim 28 doesn't say that the the touch sensor and the proximity sensors form part of the same surface, it say that a sensor module is comprised of a touch sensor AND a proximity sensor.

they are referred to as a single apparatus:

28. The apparatus of claim 27 in which the sensor module comprises a touch sensor and a proximity sensor, the touch sensor detecting touch inputs and gesture inputs having movements along the surface, the proximity sensor in combination with the touch sensor detecting gesture inputs having the perpendicular movement components.

...one apparatus, comprised of multiple sensors. just as this article has said from the very top. since the touch sensor is in the, you know, touch screen, and the the sensor module is a single apparatus, then you know the entire apparatus is in the screen. not an external device like the Kinect...the original comment i was replying to.

 

[egoistaxx9]

yeah, now never use this technology and also sue others for using it.

 

[mdelvecchio]

yeah, now never use this technology and also sue others for using it.

that isnt how apple rolls -- they implement their ideas then sue to protect them.

but if you have examples of apple being a patent troll on items they didnt implement, i would love to read about them.

 

[egoistaxx9]

that isnt how apple rolls -- they implement their ideas then sue to protect them.

but if you have examples of apple being a patent troll on items they didnt implement, i would love to read about them.

why did they add the GS3 to their lawsuit against samsung, which patent did it infringe.

 

[sransari]

which bubbles back upwards itself.

all the claims are for the same exact patent ID, 8232990, which is for the single invention in question.

youre trying to move the goalposts -- this is ONE patent, which is described via multiple, granular claims (1-31). all dealing with this one invention.

the sensors are in the display surface. it is not a camera -- which was the original assertion, that this was a ripoff of the MS Kinect.

actually claim 25 is independent and has no connection to claim 1 other than it supported by subject matter in the same patent specification as the other claims.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the subject patent does NOT overlap with Kinect, because in the subject patent, you are saying that it is claimed that there are sensors in the display surface.

Couple things is that I didn't see anyhting in the claims that showed the sensors in the display surface, even though you imply that claim 28 talks about it.

One thing to note is that even if claim 28 had something novel in it, but claim 25, being independent, overlapped with something already in existence (such as Kinect), then claim 25 theoretically is supposed to be rejected by the USPTO.

Being an experienced patent agent and former patent examiner, I hope I have explained what's going on clearly

----------

they are referred to as a single apparatus:

28. The apparatus of claim 27 in which the sensor module comprises a touch sensor and a proximity sensor, the touch sensor detecting touch inputs and gesture inputs having movements along the surface, the proximity sensor in combination with the touch sensor detecting gesture inputs having the perpendicular movement components.

...one apparatus, comprised of multiple sensors. just as this article has said from the very top. since the touch sensor is in the, you know, touch screen, and the the sensor module is a single apparatus, then you know the entire apparatus is in the screen. not an external device like the Kinect...the original comment i was replying to.

My friend, you are really reading a LOT of limitations into the claim...and are making a lot of assumptions while deviating from the claim language. Claim 28 by no means requires the touch sensor or proximity sensor to be in the touch screen...could be beneath it, could be externally attached, or even remote. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, which is a double-edge sword. One hand, the patent owner is broadly protected for their invention...on the other, it makes a patent harder to get since broader means a higher chance that something is out there. I'm not saying that this patent overlaps with Kinect, but I am saying that claim 28 does NOT, repeat, does NOT require the touch sensor to be in the touch screen, as you have been concluding.

 

[oplix]

****ing retarded. enough said.

 

[sransari]

absurd. nobody's making anything up -- read thru all the claims and summary copy...the claims is for a touchscreen device w/ proximity sensors to detect gestures in tandem w/ touch:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...8,514,221.PN.&OS=PN/8,514,221&RS=PN/8,514,221

...i swear it's like some of you people would argue we arent breathing air.

well you were saying that the claim required the touch sensors to be in the display...which as i mentioned earlier, it did not.

 

[ToomeyND]

So, in a year, you will probably be allowed to connect a Leap Motion device to an iPad. You can use this device however you like, unless the 3d space you are using to control the iPad is directly above the iPad.

Off to the side, you are money.

Over the iPad, here come the lawyers.

 

[Meandmunch]

Where is the Haptic display tech we were shown like 2 years ago now...?

 

[TMay]

actually claim 25 is independent and has no connection to claim 1 other than it supported by subject matter in the same patent specification as the other claims.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that the subject patent does NOT overlap with Kinect, because in the subject patent, you are saying that it is claimed that there are sensors in the display surface.

Couple things is that I didn't see anyhting in the claims that showed the sensors in the display surface, even though you imply that claim 28 talks about it.

One thing to note is that even if claim 28 had something novel in it, but claim 25, being independent, overlapped with something already in existence (such as Kinect), then claim 25 theoretically is supposed to be rejected by the USPTO.

Being an experienced patent agent and former patent examiner, I hope I have explained what's going on clearly

----------



My friend, you are really reading a LOT of limitations into the claim...and are making a lot of assumptions while deviating from the claim language. Claim 28 by no means requires the touch sensor or proximity sensor to be in the touch screen...could be beneath it, could be externally attached, or even remote. Claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, which is a double-edge sword. One hand, the patent owner is broadly protected for their invention...on the other, it makes a patent harder to get since broader means a higher chance that something is out there. I'm not saying that this patent overlaps with Kinect, but I am saying that claim 28 does NOT, repeat, does NOT require the touch sensor to be in the touch screen, as you have been concluding.

Let me guess, you've had, what a couple of hours to look at this, and it was probably put together over quite a period of time with input from Apple's staff patent attorneys, who have been doing this for years. It is highly detailed and technical, yet you have been able to come to the conclusion that is over broad.

Be careful with a rush to judgement; it doesn't wear well on you.

 

[sransari]

Let me guess, you've had, what a couple of hours to look at this, and it was probably put together over quite a period of time with input from Apple's staff patent attorneys, who have been doing this for years. It is highly detailed and technical, yet you have been able to come to the conclusion that is over broad

Be careful with a rush to judgement; it doesn't wear well on you.

First off it's in Apple's interest to get the broadest possible claim. Just as it is in the interest of a car buyer to get the lowest possible price. All i said was that I am surprised that Apple was able to get such a broad claim allowed. Just as I would be surprised if somebody was able to negotiate 50% off retail when buying a car. The claims themselves are not very technical nor detailed which is why my opinion is that the claims are quite broad. But good for Apple for getting these claims allowed it is a good victory for them.

And I hardly spent two hours looking at this more like two minutes. Also the patent office allows broad and vague claims all the time so it's really not incorrect for me to make an observation that I think they did that again this time.

I was also making the point that the claim doesn't require the sensor to be in the display as was asserted by other members

 

[iLilana]

bait and switch with samsung

This lends to a theory I have. Patenting this technology (not the actual gestures but the sensors that allow them) leads me to wonder about the "iWatch" and it's actual existence. A while ago I joked that the iWatch was a bait and switch tech to keep Samsung away from what they were really working on. As I suggested samsung actually is working on a wearable device with imminent release. Now we are hearing less and less about the wearable apple device since they already released a nano in wristwatch form with lacklustre enough fanfare they changed the Nano back to its almost original shape.

 

[Jsameds]

I must say, this looks very cool.

 

[TMay]

This lends to a theory I have. Patenting this technology (not the actual gestures but the sensors that allow them) leads me to wonder about the "iWatch" and it's actual existence. A while ago I joked that the iWatch was a bait and switch tech to keep Samsung away from what they were really working on. As I suggested samsung actually is working on a wearable device with imminent release. Now we are hearing less and less about the wearable apple device since they already released a nano in wristwatch form with lacklustre enough fanfare they changed the Nano back to its almost original shape.

And yet Apple hires a guy that was the primary individual behind the Nike Fuel, similar in concept to a watch band.

 

[Mike MA]

Got a lot of air gestures on my Galaxy S4, first thing I turned off.

 

[taptic]

I don't know how long it will take to get this going, but when it is implemented, I'll bet it's gonna rock!

 

[dru`]

Wasn't Samsung's Air Gesture implementation is on similar grounds? If they didn't filed any patents then their next set of Galaxies are already duped!

No, not so much. Apple's patenting adding this to the screen itself, just as they've patented adding camera lens to the display. AFAIK, Samsung just had a separate sensor on the front. Would Samsung end up building these displays for Apple if they were ever used in product? I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Rogifan]

Hmm...this was reported by Bloomberg earlier this year in an article about iOS 7.

Longer term, Ive also has shown interest in altering how people control their computers. He has met with makers of gesture technology that lets people navigate their gadgets by moving their hands -- without touching the screen, said a personal familiar with those interactions.