- Martin Denholm: Airbus Wins Patent For Mach 4.5 Hypersonic Jet
- Sarah Bro: No Copyright In Individual Contributions To A Film
- Derek Quizon: More IP Rights For Students Sought
- Senator Jeff Danielson: The Path To Prosperity Requires Sound Patent Policy, Not More Reform
- Richard Zombeck: Facebook Patents Technology That Could Allow Discrimination
Get a Job doing Patent Law
The Airbus patent 9079661 on a hypersonic passenger jet is full of practical details, including this one from the specification:
“Indeed, bearing in mind the near-vertical trajectory…during the takeoff phase, in a particular embodiment of the invention, the passengers and, possibly, the crew are placed in hammocks for improved comfort.”
The real problem is how do they figure out who gets to use the bathroom?
You do realize that the article never says which patent it is, so it’s difficult to analyze whether the article is correct?
As for pure junk patents, what about this one? Go ahead, make an argument that this is invalid under Alice. Or is this in the 1%? Or do you think that “junk” is defined via other than Alice considerations? (I should note that I don’t have an account at Facebook. I do, however, doubt 99% of their patents are “junk”.)
US Patent Number 9,098,865:
1. A computer-implemented method for near-field communication, comprising: detecting, by a source device located at a point-of-sale, the proximity of a receiving device; encoding purchase data as a series of burst audio signals with one or more ultrasonic frequencies; and transmitting the encoded purchase data to the receiving device, wherein the encoded purchase data is transmitted using a speaker of the source device, wherein each of the burst audio signals is a burst signal sustained over a predefined period of time, each of the burst signal encoded with a fixed number of bits of information, wherein each of the burst signals includes a signal from each of K non-overlapping ultrasonic frequency bands within a predefined spectrum, and wherein the signal lasts for the predefined period of time and K is an integer, and wherein N frequencies within each of the K non-overlapping ultrasonic frequency bands are used to encode the purchase data, and wherein N is an integer.
Shucks, this was supposed to go from MM’s post #1 (the spam post du jour).
Oooooh, “purchase data”! Wowee zowee. That’s, like, totally different from other kinds of information communicated with burst signals in the prior art.
Deep, deep sooper techno stuff here. Love how it all happens in “proximity to a point of sale” cuz that’s sooper dooper important, too. LOL
I think the allowable aspects here involve getting a speaker to operate over K non- overlapping ultrasonic frequency bands.
Les: the allowable aspects here involve getting a speaker to operate over K non- overlapping ultrasonic frequency bands.
If that were true, it’s a bit odd that they’d limit their awesome claims to the transmission of “purchase data.”
But of course it’s not true and the claim is a quintessential example of applicant dust-kicking and PTO incompetence.
By your logic, if the novelty is in the “purchase data”, then why burden the claim with specification of driving a speaker at ultrasonic frequencies. Why not just vaguely transmit “purchase data”? That way one encompasses RF, Ultrasonic, Light, Infra-Red, wifi, Bluetooth, hydrophone and carrier pigeon, to name but a few.
By your logic, if the novelty is in the “purchase data”, then why burden the claim with specification of driving a speaker at ultrasonic frequencies.
Two reasons: (1) it’s not a “burden” if that hoohaw is necessary to confuse the Examiner into believing that you are the inventor of soooper dooper technology and (2) it’s not a “burden” if your litigation target is using ultrasonic frequencies.
Do you have any difficult questions to answer? This seems like well-trod ground, frankly.
If there is a “litigation target” already practicing the claimed subject matter, that would seem to be invalidating prior art, wouldn’t it?
Or are you saying that this is a continuation of an application that disclosed an invention that was not limited to ultrasonics but nevertheless encompassed ultrasonics and that this patent is intended to help a jury clearly see the infringement by the sainted “litigation target”?
If there is a “litigation target” already practicing the prior art
Anybody else want to play “I was born yesterday” with Les?
I’m bored.
Because the majority view in the PTO interprets a 3 reference 103 as being indicia of allowability (minority view is that a 4 reference 103 is indicia of allowability).
When you look at “strange” claims such as this through that lens they tend to be a lot less strange.
Neither aspect was new. But throw them together and it takes too many references for the unofficial PTO test(s).
Duh.
How could you possibly not know this?
This is a very common drafting technique. Very. Common.
“wherein said point of sale is on a plane”
Sooper techno baby.
“Neither aspect was new. But throw them together and it takes too many references for the unofficial PTO test(s).”
True, but tbh it’s asking a lot of a mere ordinary skilled man to find something that is hidden in obscure portions of three references “right in the middle of the road of technological progress”.
Sounds like what is going on from all the whining about “how tough it is” is that you all just want a different law.
Maybe write your congressman….
Thanks 6 for that pithy and very revealing comment. You see a claim edifice, lots of features in a long string, that brings nothing more than the sum of its parts, and your gut tells you that the subject matter claimed ain’t an “invention” worthy of a patent, but how do you stop it going through to issue when you need three or more references to tag all the features?
With its Problem and Solution Approach to what is “obvious” the EPO does it in a trice, without breaking sweat. And in a way that leaves the Applicant spluttering, but with no legitimate complaint.
Anybody disagree? Who’s got a case where EPO-PSA (correctly worked through) would deliver the wrong outcome? If so, let’s talk about it.
Indeed, what does purchase data have to do with a novel communications method unless that method is old as the hills.
Methinks that the folks here STILL do not get is.
Ned – see 2.2.1.1.1.
Guess what’s older than the hills?
Electrons, protons, neutrons….
Yep, check your logic (again), Ned.
Facebook’s patent portfolio is 99% pure junk of the lowest order but the junk described here (Richard Zombeck: Facebook Patents Technology That Could Allow Discrimination) seems even junkier than their usual junk.
Anyone have a link to the patents so we can all have another laugh at the PTO’s expense?
Comments are closed.