|
Authored by: reiisi on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
What you are pointing out is that the patent office has failed it's
Constitutional mandate from quite early on.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 09 2013 @ 08:41 PM EDT |
Apple seems to have misled the court with what the main article refers to
(understandably) as Apple's 'snarky' notice
(http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2323.pdf).
That is because Apple's notice only says that claim 19 is now regarded as
patentable, and it remains silent on the point that the now-patentable claim 19
is not the same in substance as the claim 19 previously in issue: and that, in
turn, is because there is now (at least if Samsung's filing is not mistaken) a
new admission from Apple about the interpretation of claim 19, which alters its
relationship with allegedly infringing products.
What are the chances that Apple or its counsel will be penalised for such
misleading, I wonder?
-ts-
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 01:56 AM EDT |
Very much code is written that "unintended features/benefits."
They aren't bugs, they're just previously unknown "as written"
features.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
"One absurdity that becomes clear here is that the only difference between
the Apple "invention" and that of the Lira prior art reference that
they were trying to construe around, is what the "purpose" of the code
was that achieved the edge alignment effect."
The point of departure from the cited document is THE TEST the process uses to
determine if its time to stop moving.
In the cited document, as I recall, the test is about the position of the center
of the document.
In the claim, the test has to do with the position of the edge of the document.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|