Apple Scores Patent For 'Wrist-Worn Electronic Device'

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,696
There is no sufficient facepalm image made that captures what just happened.
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,608
'Wrist-Worn Electronic Device?' INVALID!
digital watches and heart rate monitors have existed way before this patent was conceived.
 

amddragonpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
1,996
Seems like the U.S. Patent Office is more interested in collecting fees for each patent it approves instead of the validity. Don't they, then, collect more fees if a patent is challenged?
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,457
...and the human race is held back even further because of greed and human stupidity.
You lemmings get what you having coming to you, courtesy of Apple.
 

schizrade

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2003
Messages
4,885
Fuck me running. 1, the patent system is run by fucktards. 2, Apple is run by people even greasier than the fucktards at the USPO. 3, I need to patent a device that allows for the input of characters into a digital system via finger action.

Fricking insane.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003
The Apple smartwatch is going to be called iTime? That sounds pretty horrible.
 

Nexillus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
1,116
When you think the level of stupidity can't be broken... Someone breaks it...
 

jimmyb

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,165
It's pretty sad that people think Apple literally patented all wrist worn electronics devices. If people think the patent system is broken and want to change it, it would be useful if they actually understood it in the first place.
 

Phoenix333

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,510
Fuck me running. 1, the patent system is run by fucktards. 2, Apple is run by people even greasier than the fucktards at the USPO. 3, I need to patent a device that allows for the input of characters into a digital system via finger action.

Fricking insane.

I'll see your patent, and raise you one means of moving electrons along a solid, liquid, gaseous, or plasma medium, or any combination thereof, from one point to another. There, I just patented electricity. :rolleyes:
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,980
I'll see your patent, and raise you one means of moving electrons along a solid, liquid, gaseous, or plasma medium, or any combination thereof, from one point to another. There, I just patented electricity. :rolleyes:

Nice work! Now how about a method of moving photons around based on this... "electricity" so that we may light up dark rooms, roads, and other dark places?
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
31,359
Clickbait article title, as is SOP. The scope of the patent is adding electrical circuitry into the wristband to add and enhance electronic hardware and software within an electronic watch. The patent itself references which design and electronic device patents this new patent incorporates. This is not a patent for watches or anything like that. All it does is give a glimpse of how Apple plans to design their iWatch or whatever i<insert generic item name here> branding they're going to use.

I will admit that the title of the patent itself is miisleading and could be considered Clickbait in its own right ;).
 

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,900
It's pretty sad that people think Apple literally patented all wrist worn electronics devices. If people think the patent system is broken and want to change it, it would be useful if they actually understood it in the first place.

They patented wirstwatches that have circuitry to do.. something.. paired to another device that does... something... so that each device can use the resources of the other device to do... something.

IT still fucking stupid and there is literally a truckload of prior art for this shit, much of it developed concurrently. It should have been tossed, as should any patent submitted by the others developing the exact same thing. if there's 14 entities racing to market, it is NOT a unique and patentable idea in need of protection form thieves. It's obvious and in need of quality engineering and decent marketing, not bullshit protectionism.
 

tempertantrum

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 19, 2009
Messages
395
'Wrist-Worn Electronic Device?' INVALID!
digital watches and heart rate monitors have existed way before this patent was conceived.

No one seems to be reading the patent, and the linked article does a TERRIBAD job of describing it. They obviously didn't read the patent, either. This isn't for a watch, smart or dumb, for sports, with sensors or otherwise. It's for the *wrist band itself* into which they propose putting electronics. Essentially, they are turning the wrist band into a docking station, with extra stuff, like more sensors, or batteries, etc. It makes a lot of sense, and I know of no other company doing this - at least not out in the wild where a google search will find it. So in short, shut yer' troll holes, y'all, and read.

Personally, I'd like to see something like this come to fruition. I would love to have an Android version of a PipBoy 3000...
 

Intrepid

n00b
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
15
Since the scope of the claimed subject matter is really what's at stake, how many smartwatches can we name that have removable central portions, which is required by claim 1? The only thing Apple could have tried to hang it's hat on was the embodiment of Figure 7. But unfortunately for Apple, they are no independent claims attributed to that figure's embodiment.

Apple has at least a Janurry 2011 protection date. Unless anyone can show diligence with a design that predates that, then the whole argument is moot.
 
D

Deleted member 108676

Guest
It's pretty sad that people think Apple literally patented all wrist worn electronics devices. If people think the patent system is broken and want to change it, it would be useful if they actually understood it in the first place.

The thing is everyone around here is an Android fanbo y. So the instant Steve puts "Apple" everyone stops reading and posts about what they THINK the article is about.

I'd bet quite a bit of money that if Steve put "Android(or Google, or whatever pertains to Android) in place of "Apple", this place would have so many people jerking off in happiness the forum would slow to a crawl because of all the "love."
 

Insula Gilliganis

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
1,461
Not that it matters any, but I did find it interesting that this was filed while Steve Jobs was still alive.

IHJIyaa_360.jpg
 

J3RK

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 25, 2004
Messages
9,980
The thing is everyone around here is an Android fanbo y. So the instant Steve puts "Apple" everyone stops reading and posts about what they THINK the article is about.

Not everyone. I like some apple products. I have a 2012ish i7 Macbook Pro (I mostly run a Windows VM on it for my design tools,) but it's light, insanely quick once I swapped in an SSD, and as was tested by some fortunate chap before, nearly bullet proof. I also have some nicer Dell latitudes, but they still can't compare (even though they are a little more powerful.) iPods were great when they were still a thing, and I do tend to recommend iPhones to people that want a smart phone, but may not be smart enough to operate one. :D

The new Mac Pro trash can thing is kinda cool too in a way.

However, I do prefer Android to iOS, and I do all of my serious gaming on a desktop PC. So... there... Not everyone hates their products. I do have a bit of contempt for them as a company, but then, which mega-corporation do I not have a modicum of contempt for? ;)
 

NeghVar

2[H]4U
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
2,608
No one seems to be reading the patent, and the linked article does a TERRIBAD job of describing it. They obviously didn't read the patent, either. This isn't for a watch, smart or dumb, for sports, with sensors or otherwise. It's for the *wrist band itself* into which they propose putting electronics. Essentially, they are turning the wrist band into a docking station, with extra stuff, like more sensors, or batteries, etc. It makes a lot of sense, and I know of no other company doing this - at least not out in the wild where a google search will find it. So in short, shut yer' troll holes, y'all, and read.

Personally, I'd like to see something like this come to fruition. I would love to have an Android version of a PipBoy 3000...

Then why give a broad description that is capable of covering any electronic device on a wristband. The broadness of patents is the catalyst to the entire patent system corruption. Require the patent filers to be specific about their product.
 

CRaschNet

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
189
Seems like the U.S. Patent Office is more interested in collecting fees for each patent it approves instead of the validity. Don't they, then, collect more fees if a patent is challenged?

It's all outsourced now like federal background checks.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
This whole first to patent thing has got to stop.
It's actually a lot worse than that. USPTO interpretations of law allow a company to lock up the entire idea by filing a new patent, even one mostly based on an expired patent, as long as the new claim(s) have no exact matching claims in prior filings. For example, Amazon's take a picture on a white background patent was granted because Amazon included an angle for claims in its filing. Seriously.

The whole concept of novelty and NOT being obvious to a skilled layman are a thing of the past.
 

dr.kevin

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
3,053
seems like the same limitations as any other smartwatch. Same feature set, same uselessness.

It will either flop, or it will succeed on fanboyism.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,696
I think they changed it already, to something worse

No they changed it from first to invent to first to patent. The rest of the world was on first to patent because that way they could block other countries (mostly US) devices. The US was the only one on first to invent. Then we switched what the rest of the world is doing once the 'rest of the world does it better, the US never does' crowd got in office.
 

Goride

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
276
You guys do realize the patent is not just a "Wrist-Worn Electronic Device" right?

That is just the title of the patent.


For instance think of a fiction novel. Is the entirety of what is contained in the novel summed up in the title of it? No. Neither is the case with this patent.


Article titles like this are just here to troll you into clicking it.
 

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Clickbait article title, as is SOP. The scope of the patent is adding electrical circuitry into the wristband to add and enhance electronic hardware and software within an electronic watch. The patent itself references which design and electronic device patents this new patent incorporates. This is not a patent for watches or anything like that. All it does is give a glimpse of how Apple plans to design their iWatch or whatever i<insert generic item name here> branding they're going to use.

I will admit that the title of the patent itself is miisleading and could be considered Clickbait in its own right ;).

I'm pretty sure there's a few devices that have electronic circuitry in the band for sensors. That's an obvious progression of smart watches.

The "dock" idea is not revolutionary at all. As it's simply a means for the built in band sensors (the ones meant to be on the opposite of the wrist) to allow swapping styles for the head unit. There's various fit watches that disconnect from the band to charge.

The whole point, does their "invention" serve to be unique enough to warrant a patent? I don't see the combination of these items to be unique. I see is as a natural and obvious advancement of the tech.

Invalid. Next?
 

Goride

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
276
This is what is what the patent actually covers:

What is claimed is:

1. An electronic wristband to be worn on a wrist of a user, the electronic wristband comprising: a central portion having a receptacle area configured to receive and electrically connect to a mobile electronic device, the mobile electronic device including a display and being independently useable apart from the electronic wristband to perform a first set of functions; and at least one band portion coupled to the central portion and suitable to assist with securing the electronic wristband to the wrist of the user, the at least one band portion including a wireless communication transceiver provided internal to the at least one band portion and operatively connected to the mobile electronic device when the mobile electronic device is received in the receptacle area, wherein the mobile electronic device, when received in the receptacle area, is operable to perform a second set of functions, the second set of functions including all of the first set of functions and further including wirelessly communicating user input received by the mobile electronic device to a second electronic device via the wireless communication transceiver.

2. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the electronic wristband further comprises: an electrical connector provided at the receptacle area and used at least in part to removably secure the mobile electronic device to the receptacle area.

3. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 2, wherein the wireless communication transceiver provided internal to the at least one band portion is electrically connected to electronic circuitry within the mobile electronic device via the electrical connector.

4. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one band portion further includes at least one of an accelerometer, an antenna, a GPS receiver, or a haptic device.

5. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the first set of functions of the mobile electronic device includes media storage and playback.

6. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the display of the mobile electronic device includes a touch screen.

7. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the central portion includes at least one electrical component.

8. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 7, wherein the at least one electrical component included in the central portion includes at least one of a haptic device, a printed circuit substrate, or an accelerometer.

9. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 7, wherein the at least one electrical component provided in the central portion includes at least a battery.

10. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 7, wherein the at least one electrical component provided in the central portion includes at least a haptic device.

11. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 10, wherein the haptic device is provided adjacent a bottom surface of the central portion that is placed against the wrist of the user when the electronic wristband is being worn on the wrist of the user.

12. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 11, wherein the haptic device is configured to controllably provide a physical alert to the user via the wrist of the user.

13. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 12, wherein the haptic device includes at least a piezoelectric device.

14. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 7, wherein the at least one electrical component includes a sensor and the second set of functions further includes determining the user input based at least in part on monitoring the sensor to detect an arm or wrist gesture.

15. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 14, wherein the sensor includes one or both of an accelerometer or a gyroscope.

16. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the electronic wristband includes a battery, wherein the battery is configured to supply electrical power to the wireless communication transceiver.

17. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 16, wherein the battery is further configured to supply electrical power to the mobile electronic device when the mobile electronic device is provided in the receptacle area.

18. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the at least one band portion includes at least a first band and a second band, each of the first band and the second band coupled to the central portion.

19. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 18, wherein the first band includes the wireless communication transceiver, and the second band includes at least one second band electrical component.

20. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 19, wherein the first band includes at least a first antenna, and wherein the at least one second band electrical component includes at least a second antenna.

21. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 1, wherein the second set of functions further includes receiving, via the wireless communication transceiver, a notification from the second electronic device and presenting the notification to the user.

22. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 21, wherein the notification is presented on the display of the mobile electronic device.

23. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 21, wherein the second electronic device is a mobile phone and the notification pertains to an incoming call at the mobile phone.

24. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 23, wherein the user input includes an indication to accept or decline the incoming call.

25. An electronic wristband as recited in claim 21, wherein the notification pertains to an alert generated by an application operating on the second electronic device.


Note: I am not trying to say that this should or should not have been rejected. I do not feel like going through the analysis, or even really reading the actual claims. I just want to point out to those who think that the title of "Wrist-Worn Electronic Device" is all that needs to be found.

Also, a picture of Dick Tracy and his watch are not good enough to count as prior art. In a case like this it would have to be an actual relatively working device. You cannot just take an idea of a gadget wrist watch, without any information detailing how it works or what it is comprised of, and call it good for prior art. (not unless the claims are absurdly broad any, which is not the case here).


Link to text of the actual patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-.../22/2014&RS=(CCL/361/679.03+AND+ISD/20140722)
 

Goride

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
276
EDIT: I made a typo in the post above.





I said this:

I just want to point out to those who think that the title of "Wrist-Worn Electronic Device" is all that needs to be found.



I should have said this:

I just wanted to point out to those who just think that the title of "Wrist-Worn Electronic Device" is all that needs to be found. It is not. Every single element to the claim needs to be found, or it does not anticipate. Now there is an obviousness analysis that needs to be done as well, but even still, one would need to find every element having been done before.

You do not just look at the title of the patent and say "lol I've seen that before"
 

Intrepid

n00b
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
15
You are spot on, Goride. Finally someone who knows how the system works and isn't jumping to conclusions based on a title (which holds no patentable weight).

And like I said before, the independent claim requires the receptacle area for a removable electronic device. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would read upon this limitation. Maybe someone else can.
 
Top