Pinch-to-zoom is not a DESIGN patent. A DESIGN patent is something like the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle.
----------
Wood? Nails? Glue?
I guess I can't make an unique chair and patent it because it uses all those 'known' technologies.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USPTO Preliminarily Rejects Apple's 'Pinch-to-Zoom' Patent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pinch-to-zoom is not a DESIGN patent. A DESIGN patent is something like the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle.
----------
Wood? Nails? Glue?
I guess I can't make an unique chair and patent it because it uses all those 'known' technologies.
At least read what you write. Your first claim was that science fiction can't be used as prior art. You didn't said nothing about utility patents. Your claim was they can't be used, period.
I am glad to have found this site where apparently all of the world's patent lawyers have registered 
First of all, some of you really have no clue what you're talking about and I think it's sad that such false information can be disseminated without anyone to check it.
Second, yes this is a big deal for Apple, but no it's not the end all be all. A preliminary invalidation is just that. It happens everyday when such claims are bought forth. Some here are acting as if apple has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar or something.
From here, Apple's lawyers will present why their patent is valid, and then a final decision will be made. Does a preliminary invalidation ensure that it will be ultimately invalidated? Absolutely not! Nor is a preliminary invalidation some indication that the case against the patent is strong.
First of all, some of you really have no clue what you're talking about and I think it's sad that such false information can be disseminated without anyone to check it.
Second, yes this is a big deal for Apple, but no it's not the end all be all. A preliminary invalidation is just that. It happens everyday when such claims are bought forth. Some here are acting as if apple has been caught with their hands in the cookie jar or something.
From here, Apple's lawyers will present why their patent is valid, and then a final decision will be made. Does a preliminary invalidation ensure that it will be ultimately invalidated? Absolutely not! Nor is a preliminary invalidation some indication that the case against the patent is strong.
and that matters how much to the patent or the point being made?
Barcelona are probably the classiest football team there is...but they didn't invent the game!
Just like any other understaffed organization USPTO depends on honor system. I guess by default they trust the applicant unless history suggests otherwise.
I stand corrected....
I thought hard about which team to mention....I knew whichever I did would precipitate a response inline with yours. I asked for it!
who would you suggest by the way?
What's your point here? Charlietuna claimed a "touch sensitive display" was a specific type of tech. It's not. It's merely referencing a...wait for it...touch sensitive display.
...of which there are many. His argument that Apple's pinch to zoom depends on a specific type of capacitive touchscreen was null and voided by the patent itself.
I stand corrected....
I thought hard about which team to mention....I knew whichever I did would precipitate a response inline with yours. I asked for it!
who would you suggest by the way?
that's a really tough one, I would have to think about it, off the top of my head pretty much all the top clubs have something going against them in that regard, lol
I do like Borussia Dortmund, talented, not a mega spender, quality coach and little controversy unlike many of the top clubs
Yes, you did :
Since the only time Science Fiction was brought up as prior art was in the case of a design patent, and while discussing said design patent, we have to assume your "Little kids" insult meant Samsung's counsel when they brought up Kubrick as a defense to Apple's DESIGN patent.
----------
Don't you just like the goal post moving with these people ? Next will be the "But... But... You're a fandroid! Why do you hang out here!" comment.
This should be read, first. This patent is not for pinch-to-zoom.
FingerWorks did not invent multi-touch. In fact, if you actually read Westerman's 1999 thesis that you linked to, it contains tons of references back to such things in the 1980s. For example, this section on page 39:
"Rubine [129, 130] reports seeing another multi-touch tablet demonstrated at AT&T in 1988 (note:invented in 1983) by Robert Boie which could detect all ten fingers. It boasted a 30-39 fps frame rate and resolution of 1 mil (.025 mm) in lateral position and 10 bits in pressure. Possibly it measured sensor capacitance with the synchronous detection technology in a 1995 patent by Boie et al. [17] that briefy mentions multi-touch tablets as an application."
Or if you're in a rush, just read Buxton's piece on multi-touch history.
Perhaps for mass produced handhelds, but capacitive screens had been around:
Bsides the 1980s reference above, if you went to an Indian casino starting in the early 1990s, and played on a video touch machine, then you likely were using a capacitive screen on a distributed system running my code. Casinos have more money than God, and we got to build almost anything we wanted. A few years later, they were making flat portable versions.
It's true that its time had come for phones. Everyone and their brother was showing off capacitive screens and bodies in 2006.
That's because they'd never seen it before. Many of us had, and some very famous names in the UI field immediately pointed it out. For example, ex-Appler Bruce Tognazzini, who noted that he had done pinch zoom back in the 1990s for a Sun demo.
Neither Apple nor Fingerworks invented multi-touch, or pinch zoom, or most of the other stuff you probably think they did.
I have to say that your posts are always the most informative on this site. Thanks for the info.
Thats because kDarling is actually versed in the subject matter he talks about..
Me I'll just take pot shots cause it's way more fun
Me I'll just take pot shots cause it's way more fun
Me I'll just take pot shots cause it's way more fun
I like to strike that delicate balance between. Always trying to throw in something occasionally informative amongst my lame attempts at snarkery.
...I do this mostly because I don't know if moderator warnings expire.
What i meant was, these were the same patents (`915) won against Samsung in court right?
If they were good back then, why are the same ones rejected now ?
----------
ummm... coke....
Who said they were good ? A jury of 12 uneducated people in patents who failed to follow proper patent review guidelines ?
There's a reason the September Obama patent reform grants the right for a party of litigation to require a panel of experts rather than a jury to review the cases. The law wasn't in place yet for Apple v. Samsung.
They're totally right.... I mean, I was using pinch-to-zoom on everything before 2006. My flip phone, my XP tablet, my mini-xp tablet, my Rio MP3 player. It was getting so old by the time iPhone came out. I hope they burn.
Just because your popular electronics didn't use it, doesn't mean it didn't exist. Here is a video from 1988 showing "pinch to zoom", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo#t=4m30s
Now a days, the more patents that are approved, the more money the patent workers earn. Kind of like commission. It wasn't always like this.
----------
This is a video from the 80s, beat you by a decade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmmxVA5xhuo#t=4m30s
Even without the new law, it appears Samsung legal team was sloppy from get go. They completely missed out on jury foreman's background. Not sure if they even called their own expert witnesses, if so how effective they were explaining to jury.
Prior to this case it is normal for companies to sue each other on patent infringement and settle outside. They never realized foreman had different agenda.
Or they were very wise - as in "crazy like a fox".
Let the blowhard jury foreman taint the case, then bring it up during appeal. It could be better to have an incompetent, potentially biased foreman than one truly aware.
Microsoft did well in their big trial by infuriating the judge to the point where he made emotional mistakes that invalidated most of the ruling.
Remember the movie quote "there were plans within plans"....