US Patent Office Invalidates Apple’s Bounce Scroll Patent

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
You know this decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office has to make Samsung very, very happy. Apple? Not so much. :D

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has good news for Samsung, and Samsung has already shared it with Judge Koh in a late-night filing. In a non-final Office action the USPTO has declared all 20 claims of Apple's rubber-banding patent (U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 invalid, including claim 19, which Apple successfully asserted against Samsung in the summer trial in California. In fact, claim 19 is one of several claims to be deemed invalid for two reasons, either one of which would be sufficient on its own.
Click to expand...
 
I am happy they came to this conclusion but does it seem odd to anyone that they didn't realize the whole prior art thing sooner?

I think the USPTO really needs more funding to be able to research these sorts of things in a timely way and prevent these big expensive lawsuits in the first place.

The only one who loses then are the lawyers (for a change) .
 
Wow...wish I could say that the Patent Office is getting some sense! Most likely a payoff by Samsung...
 
schizrade said:
What's a rubber bounce scroll?
Click to expand...
It's a natural extension to inertial scrolling, whereby the scrolling action doesn't come to a dead stop when you reach a content edge. You can keep scrolling the content, but the 'resistance' increases the further you go.
 
JoeUser said:
Most likely a payoff by Samsung...
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Apple is bringing attention to the absurdity of their patents by taking it to trial and using the results in the media as ad campaigns. One of the downsides of increased attention is getting the US Patent Office's attention as well.
 
Blown 89 said:
I doubt it. Apple is bringing attention to the absurdity of their patents by taking it to trial and using the results in the media as ad campaigns. One of the downsides of increased attention is getting the US Patent Office's attention as well.
Click to expand...

And ordinary consumers are starting to realize how ridiculous some of these "innovation" claims (that Apple routinely flogs to defend its questionable patents) are.

If the auto industry were like the smartphone industry, Toyota and Honda would be fighting over whether the second-generation Insight copied the Prius (the Kammback shape has been known since the 1930s). They might ALL go to the mats over pickup trucks, which really only have one practical shape. Ad naseum.
 
Steve said:
You know this decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office has to make Samsung very, very happy. Apple? Not so much. :D
Click to expand...

It's a non-final office action. It's not invalidated, it's rejected. Apple will now argue against the Examiner's determination. If they cannot convince the Examiner, it will be finally rejected. Apple then can appeal to the US PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. If they lose there, they can appeal to the Federal Circuit.

In short, the patent isn't invalidated, and given the stakes, it will be a long time before it is.
 
The Gonz said:
I am happy they came to this conclusion but does it seem odd to anyone that they didn't realize the whole prior art thing sooner?

I think the USPTO really needs more funding to be able to research these sorts of things in a timely way and prevent these big expensive lawsuits in the first place.

The only one who loses then are the lawyers (for a change) .
Click to expand...

That won't happen because it means a part of gov't gets bigger
 
PurduEE said:
It's a non-final office action. It's not invalidated, it's rejected. Apple will now argue against the Examiner's determination. If they cannot convince the Examiner, it will be finally rejected. Apple then can appeal to the US PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. If they lose there, they can appeal to the Federal Circuit.

In short, the patent isn't invalidated, and given the stakes, it will be a long time before it is.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the bribe wasn't big enough and Apple needs to come up with alot more money :)
 
PurduEE said:
It's a non-final office action. It's not invalidated, it's rejected. Apple will now argue against the Examiner's determination. If they cannot convince the Examiner, it will be finally rejected. Apple then can appeal to the US PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. If they lose there, they can appeal to the Federal Circuit.

In short, the patent isn't invalidated, and given the stakes, it will be a long time before it is.
Click to expand...

Oh this will surely take years before it's played out, although shouldn't this make any court cases for infringing on the patent null & void until such time as the patent itself is decided on?

IANAL so I'm not saying it will, just that I would think it would since how can you sue for infringing on a patent that the patent office says isn't valid?
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Oh this will surely take years before it's played out, although shouldn't this make any court cases for infringing on the patent null & void until such time as the patent itself is decided on?

IANAL so I'm not saying it will, just that I would think it would since how can you sue for infringing on a patent that the patent office says isn't valid?
Click to expand...

Nope. IAAL, and a non-final rejection from the patent office doesn't nullify your rights. The patent office hasn't said the patent is invalid, they've said that, based on arguments made by a third-party in a reexamination proceeding (i.e., samsung), that the patent is rejected. Apple has not yet had an opportunity to respond to Samsung's arguments provided in the reexamination request. Apple will probably have lots of reasons for the Examiner to change his view.
 
Apple will send some goons to the examiners house, the mess will all be cleaned up shortly.
 
PurduEE said:
Nope. IAAL, and a non-final rejection from the patent office doesn't nullify your rights. The patent office hasn't said the patent is invalid, they've said that, based on arguments made by a third-party in a reexamination proceeding (i.e., samsung), that the patent is rejected. Apple has not yet had an opportunity to respond to Samsung's arguments provided in the reexamination request. Apple will probably have lots of reasons for the Examiner to change his view.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply, while I can understand Apple having a chance to reply I'll be curious to see what that response is. I mean as I see if if Samsung was able to show the patent office, and they accepted as valid, prior art for the patent in question what could Apple possible do to discount it, short of showing it was faked?
 
DarkStar_WNY said:
Thanks for the reply, while I can understand Apple having a chance to reply I'll be curious to see what that response is. I mean as I see if if Samsung was able to show the patent office, and they accepted as valid, prior art for the patent in question what could Apple possible do to discount it, short of showing it was faked?
Click to expand...

Argue that said prior art is, in fact, not prior art.
 
After reviewing a few of the Apple patents in question, there should be a few more that should be invalidated. It's a home court advantage for Apple, it is the only reason they are winning in the US and not other countries.
 
apple stole the idea of using a rectangle with somewhat rounded corners to relay and store information from the Sumerians.

L6SOt.jpg
[/IMG]
Samsung should just say they got the idea of a rectangle tablet from the Sumerian clay and stone tablets.
 
randomdean100 said:
apple stole the idea of using a rectangle with somewhat rounded corners to relay and store information from the Sumerians.

Samsung should just say they got the idea of a rectangle tablet from the Sumerian clay and stone tablets.
Click to expand...

Great, now that you've posted that picture Apple lawyers will start preparing to sue the Sumerian's for stealing their ideas. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top