Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 84

  • USPTO News: Although the move has been in the works for some time, Raymond Chen is now Solicitor of the USPTO and Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law. Chen’s JD is from NYU. He also has a BS in electrical engineering from the UCLA. Prior to joining the solicitor’s office, Chen was a technical assistant at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Chen’s parents were both engineers as well.
  • Voting: Patently-O is in second place in the ABA Blog championship. Vote for Patently-O here.
  • Suing the Software Giants: In 1998 three central-Indiana inventors filed for patent protection iconic software. The claims – finally issued in 2008 – cover a method of using icons that look like the content of the files they represent. The first named inventor – Greg Swartz – moved to Arizona and has recently filed an infringement complaint in that state. Defendants include Google (Chrome Browser), Microsoft (Vista), and Apple (iPhone). (U.S. Patent No. 7,346,850; ArsTechnica). The Niro firm is representing the patent holder – Cygnus Systems. An additional continuation is pending. The complaint can be found through Stanford’s LexMachina Database.

23 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 84

  1. 23

    Lowly, and Mr Mooney (and anybody else who’s interested): As to EPO-PSA, the “objective problem” is the “delta” you get when comparing D1 with the app as filed. That’s a strict comparison between two documents, both of them having come into existence before the date of the claim in view. That’s objective, and no amount of post-filing date attorney argument can change the disclosure content of those two pre-existing docs, so no amount of attorney argument can change the true objective technical problem (from which the obvious Y/N result inevitably emerges). That doesn’t stop them trying though. And good so. What would we do all day, if the law were to render attorney argument futile? BTW, when the attorney or the EPO Exr doesn’t really “get” PSA, then the argument gets embarrassing. However, when the argument focusses properly, the PSA obviousness debate is over in a trice. So, it’s an education thing, mostly.

  2. 22

    Alright alright I was bored. But check this out MM, these folks are doing like you said, showing how it is done. Except it seems that they seem to think they came up with the whole idea themselves too.

    link to web.mit.edu

  3. 20

    “If the PTO and examiners would just get that their job is not to judge the invention, but to examine the applications, pendency would drop and quality would jump, and costs would drop.”

    “If only congress would amend U.S.C 151 then pendency would drop, etc, utopia would be achieved, etc”

    Appearances of applications being entitled to a patent are subjective, not objective.

  4. 19

    Hey software patent peddlers, is “invoking” a term of art?

    Sounds magical.

    [invokes comment posting pathway]

  5. 18

    All I have to say is thumbnails baby. Upon my initial inspection, this claim reads on every image gallery interface ever created: generate a thumbnail from the contents of the image, and then provide a way to open the file.

  6. 17

    Lowly: “it’s not that uncommon for the applicant and examiner to argue about what the objective technical problem is, in my limited epo experience.”

    What’s the objective technical problem in claim 1?

    Just kidding. There isn’t one. At least, there isn’t one that is solved by the claimed method.

    Lowly: “We had a nice objective standard in TSM”

    It was neither. Please stop pretending.

  7. 16

    Night: ” If the invention was so clearly known, or if invention is so obvious, then find either the invention in the prior art or find the elements of the invention in the prior art with a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the elements. ”

    Yes, thank you, I just did that upthread. The claim above is a claim to an obvious idea, simply combining two old ideas to achieve exactly what anyone would expect to be achieved: (1) an old method for opening a file by clicking on some pixels on a screen; and (2) an old method of identifying a file’s contents (any file — not a computer file) using an image instead of text.

    Those are old methods. If you disagree, you are a liar or an idjit. Pay me some money and I’ll find you the “art”. Then you can hire your worthless attorney to argue that the art isn’t “analogous” or some such baloney.

    As MD notes, a genuine invention in this area (computer-implemented bullcrap) would describe a non-obvious method of producing the iconic image from the file. That method would include specific, detailed steps and the specification would include an example of source code for achieving the result and evidence showing that the claimed method yields icons in a manner that is unexpectedly fast or uses unexpectedly low amounts of memory.

    That’s how serious people prosecute patents. Trolls who prosecute and peddle bogus computer-implemented garbage simply type their idea up (“wouldn’t it be nice if …?”) and file it. The PTO is filled to the brim with this doodoo. What’s most pathetic is that whenever the PTO or the CAFC starts stomping out the crap, a bunch of crybabies show up here and everywhere else on the Internet and spout off about how America won’t lead the world in computer programming anymore if we don’t allow patents on this crap. Boo hoo.

  8. 15

    “Night, do I detect a plea for an objective standard by which to judge obviousness, being qualitatively better than a subjective one. Question for you: The EPO “problem and solution approach”, the EPO’s sub-set of TSM, is it subjective or is it objective? Clue: its core question is not “Is it obvious” but, rather, “What’s the objective technical problem?””

    We had a nice objective standard in TSM, until KSR came along and eviscerated everything and changed obviousness to a “I’ll know it when I see it” sort of test.

    If we can’t return to strict TSM, I’d be all for adopting the PSA. I do, however, note that determining the “objective” technical problem can be rather subjective 😉 and that it’s not that uncommon for the applicant and examiner to argue about what the objective technical problem is, in my limited epo experience.

    Of course, the problem isn’t so much the obviousness standard as it is the USPTO itself and the attitude of examiners and spe’s. Things would run smoothly, if a bit unpredictably, if us examiners were as competent as epo examiners and took the same pride in their work as epo examiners.

    I’m a red meat eating, gun toting, beer drinking, football (real football, not that pansy soccer crap) watching american and it pains me to have to admit that europe has us beat in this area… 🙁

  9. 14

    Night, do I detect a plea for an objective standard by which to judge obviousness, being qualitatively better than a subjective one. Question for you: The EPO “problem and solution approach”, the EPO’s sub-set of TSM, is it subjective or is it objective? Clue: its core question is not “Is it obvious” but, rather, “What’s the objective technical problem?”

  10. 13

    >>Right, nothing at all obvious about that. I’m >>sure nobody ever thought of using an icon, >>say, a screw, to indicate that a storage >>container contained screws.

    MM, what our system needs to avoid is people’s opinion of an invention. If the invention was so clearly known, or if invention is so obvious, then find either the invention in the prior art or find the elements of the invention in the prior art with a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the elements. With the unbelievable growth in publications this job should be getting easier and easier. With the growth in the number of applications, the examiners should be able to become more and more specialized, which should make thier job easier.

    If the PTO and examiners would just get that their job is not to judge the invention, but to examine the applications, pendency would drop and quality would jump, and costs would drop.

    Just the basics of examineration is all that needs to be improved.

    MM: Are you a government attorney?

  11. 12

    Would the word “application” in claim 1 make this kosher under Bilski? It never says that the “computer” is doing the method.

  12. 11

    And let me guess: in response to an argument that these crap claims are obvious, the applicants are going to argue that “when their applications were filed, not everybody used them but everybody uses them now.” As if the two facts are related.

    Wait … what’s that awful smell? Oh my god. Could it be?

    “The Niro firm is representing the patent holder”

    BWAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHH!!!!! OOOOooo, scary!!! Don’t subpoena me, bro’!

  13. 10

    The defendants may want to take a look at the prior commercial Xerox “Globalview” PC document drawers and folders icons displaying systems? [Not mentioned in the subject 7,346,859 specification although perhaps it is in one of the listed patent references?]

  14. 9

    “Suing the Software Giants: In 1998 three central-Indiana inventors filed for patent protection iconic software. The claims – finally issued in 2008 – cover a method of using icons that look like the content of the files they represent.”

    Right, nothing at all obvious about that. I’m sure nobody ever thought of using an icon, say, a screw, to indicate that a storage container contained screws.

    The reason is that prior to 1998, nobody used storage containers to store things so no nobody could have predicted that a graphic image could effectively communicate the contents of a storage container, particularly in situations where the image would be easier to understand compared to text because of size constraints.

    The claims are quintessential examples of obvious computer-implemented bullcrap.

  15. 8

    “Suing the Software Giants: In 1998 three central-Indiana inventors filed for patent protection iconic software. The claims – finally issued in 2008 – cover a method of using icons that look like the content of the files they represent.”

    Right, nothing at all obvious about that. I’m sure nobody ever thought of using an icon, say, a screw, to indicate that a storage container contained screws.

    The reason is that prior to 1998, nobody used storage containers to store things so no nobody could have predicted that a graphic image could effectively communicate the contents of a storage container, particularly in situations where the image would be easier to understand compared to text because of size constraints.

    The claims are quintessential examples of obvious computer-implemented bullcrap.

  16. 7

    Normally in the words of Tone Loc “I need fifty dollars to make you holler, I get paid to do the wild thing.”

    But since you’re egging 6 on to get himself in trouble discussing the validity of an issued patent, I’ll throw an easily located reference into the mix…

    US 5349658 to O’Rourke et al. issued in 1994; Summary notes “The solution comprises making ‘snapshots’ of the computer screen when documents are loaded, and later using the snapshots as visual references for the documents” and “producing a snapshot that graphically represents a screen produced during execution of the application program. The user interface also provides means for displaying the snapshot on the display after execution of the application program has terminated.”

  17. 6

    FD of 1998? Has this application been published so that its claims may be viewed by us, the general public? I think not. From the PTO Overview of 18-Month Publication: “Before November 29, 2000, utility and plant patent applications that were filed in the United States were required to be kept in confidence….”

  18. 4

    Yes, 6K, and please, try to find a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the art before the priority date so that we do not have to rely on your opinion of the invention.

  19. 3

    6k, you should be able to tank this one with one of your 30 second google searches, right?

    please post up the links to the art you find.

  20. 2

    “What is claimed is:

    1. A method of accessing one or more computer files via a graphical icon, comprising the steps of:

    capturing automatically one or more graphical representations of one or more portions of information content of one or more computer files while an application is manipulating the one or more computer files;

    creating automatically an icon including selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content of the one or more computer files wherein the icon graphically depicts at least a portion of the information content from the one or more computer files and wherein the icon is created while the application was manipulating the icon’s corresponding one or more computer files and includes selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;

    linking the icon to the application and to the one or more computer files based on the ability of the application to manipulate the information content of the one or more computer files corresponding to the icon;

    storing the icon in a memory;
    displaying the icon in a window on a display screen;
    invoking the application for manipulating the information content of the one or more computer files upon selection of the icon by accessing the more or more computer files by reference to an underlying file system corresponding to the icon and opening the one or more computer files within the application.

    2. The method of claim 1, wherein capturing a graphical representation is initiated by a user input command while the application manipulating the one or more computer files are active.

    3. The method of claim 2, wherein the user input command is a keyboard command.

    4. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of storing information related to the application for manipulating the one or more computer files in the memory along with the icon.

    5. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of displaying the window when a cursor is positioned at an edge of the screen display.

    6. The method of claim 5, further comprising the step of concealing the window when the cursor is positioned outside the window.

    7. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of invoking the application comprises invoking the application and opening the one or more computer files upon a single user input command selecting the icon.

    8. The method of claim 7, wherein the single user input command comprises depressing a button when a cursor is placed over the icon.

    9. The method of claim 8, wherein the button is a mouse button and the cursor is a mouse-driver cursor.

    10. The method of claim 1, wherein if an application is active then the step of invoking the application comprises accessing the active application.

    11. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of storing data related to the one or more computer files and the corresponding application each time the one or more computer files and application is opened and closed during a session, and wherein the step of invoking the application comprises invoking the one or more computer files and the application based on the stored data related to the one or more computer files and corresponding application.

    12. The method of claim 11, wherein the data related to the one or more computer files and the corresponding application includes a document path, a document handle, and application path, and an application handle.

    13. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of invoking the further includes printing the computer file.

    14. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of invoking the application comprises copying the one or more computer files to designated storage device.

    15. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of creating an icon comprises creating an icon corresponding to a template file.

    16. A method for providing a user interface for accessing a file based on a corresponding icon comprising:

    storing a plurality of icons in a memory along with a corresponding plurality of references to an underlying file system for storage information for a plurality of files, each icon having an appearance substantially depicting information content from its corresponding file, wherein the plurality of icons were created by capturing automatically one or more graphical representations of one or more portions of information content of an icon’s corresponding file while an application was manipulating an icon’s corresponding file and include selected portions of the captured one or more graphical representations of the information content;

    linking an application to each icon based utility on the ability of the application to manipulate the information content of the file corresponding to the icon;

    providing a window on a display screen for displaying the plurality of icons;

    invoking the application for manipulating the information content of the file corresponding to the selected icon upon selection of an icon from the plurality of icons in the window;
    accessing the file designated by the reference to the underlying file system corresponding to the selected icon; and
    opening the accessed file into the corresponding application.

    17. The method of claim 16, wherein the step of storing a plurality of icons in a memory further comprises storing data related to an application for manipulating the corresponding file along with each of the plurality of icons and wherein the step of invoking the application corresponding to the selected icon comprises invoking an application based on the corresponding stored data related to the application.”

    Hokay, where to begin? Is that Mr. Bilski calling me to supper? He says take the day off, he might have this one?

    Hmmmm.

    “storing the icon in a memory;
    displaying the icon in a window on a display screen;”

    Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    Moving onward then. Googling shall commence sometime today. FD of 1998, so let’s look for 2b’s in 97-.

Comments are closed.