|
|  Infinite Monkey Theorem Blog | |
|
|
Author: |
PatentMonkey |
Created: |
12/29/2006 10:36 AM |
 |
|
Analysis on the intersection of patents and business. |
|
Biometric Cell Phone Developments |
|
By PatentMonkey on
9/3/2007 5:47 AM
|
|
|
 |
|
|
If Motorola or At&T's recent patents show, biometric controls are coming for cell phones. Cingular envisions a means to unlock your phone with your voice while Moto has begun developing a means to use a cell phone to deliver a shocking result to your body on command.
AT&T/Cingular Biometric Authentication of a Wireless Device User
In 2004, AT&T identified that while security and controls are developing for phones in non-verbal technologies (data entry via keys), that a means of developing security access via voice signals would be just as beneficial. To that end, AT&T's patent identifies unlocking a cell phone where a "voice selection is analyzed to determine a corresponding selection ID, and a voice print is retrieved from the storage location corresponding to the selection ID and to an ID of the wireless telephone."
While we've highlighted that multi-touch is mostly a tertiary feature, Apple and AT&T have the opportunity to use voice controls in innovative ways like this technology today with little more than a firmware update.
Now, for a further out of the box idea...
Motorola Method for Stimulating One or More Areas on a Wearer
Yeah, no lie. Moto has patented a concept to deliver an electric shock to the skin. Read claim 1:
1. An apparatus for stimulating areas of a body comprising:
a wireless communication device that alerts a user of an incoming message through a user interface;
at least one set of conductors coupled to the wireless device, the conductors including a first conductor and a second conductor that are arranged so as to contact an epidermal area of a body of a wearer of the apparatus;
and a power source for creating an electric potential between the first conductor and the second conductor under control of the wireless communication device, wherein the electric potential induces a current flow between the first conductor and the second conductor and the current travels through the epidermal area of the body of the wearer of the apparatus.
Epidermis (Wikipedia) - the outermost layer of the skin. It forms the waterproof, protective wrap over the body's surface...
Why? This invention relates in general to electrically stimulating areas of the body, and more particularly, to temporarily stimulating areas of the body including muscles for silent notification of an event and/or for therapeutic treatment.
So, could cell phones move from 'vibrate' to 'shock'? Not so sure I'm a fan, although it make for a great SNL skit.
|
 |
|
Comments (14)
|
|
|
|
BIG Patent Changes are Here |
|
By PatentMonkey on
8/26/2007 9:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While Congress takes a break for August on The Patent Reform Act, two competitors that steal the thunder: the USPTO and the US Circuit of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
Heads are spinning to keep abreast of the broad, rapid-fire changes that are being dealt to the patent universe. Namely, just this week, the CAFC reversed its view on willful infringement damages in a case with Seagate, and the PTO held a webinar to cover its Nov 1st new requirements to Improve Patent Quality.
Seagate CAFC Ruling Changes 3x Damages
With its ruling, the CAFC has raised the bar for enhanced damages to "objectively reckless" behavior from negligence. In essence, proof that the infringer acted deliberately in its efforts to infringe will cause 3x damanges, while negligence and unknown infringements now have equal weight of 1x damages. The ruling also noted that lengthy and expensive clearance opinions of non-infringement were not necessary to avoid 3x damages putting more burden of proof on the enforcing company.
Looking Forward - While enhanced damages are rare, this move by the CAFC reduces the payoff potential of patent litigation, thus reducing incentive for patent owners to go after broad litigation suits where costs are close to potential fees.
USPTO Patent Quality Improvements
Many IP attorneys had rumored that the PTO was about to enact changes unto itself to lessen the load on its examiners, remove some loopholes in the system and add clarity to filings.
Examination Support - Patents filed after Nov 1st will be allowed only 5 independent claims and 25 total claims without requiring added examination support, specific filing support will be required for applications with more than this number of claims.
Continuation Limits - A common means to extend the life of a patent is to file a continuation with new claims on the invention which can be better tuned to the market's adoption of the technology and a new, later date of filing and expiration. The PTO now requires details for how applicants must file continuances providing why claims weren't filed with the original patent.
Multiple Applications on the same Filing Date - The PTO also has increased the filing requirements for applications referring to the same priority or filing date to add more clarity to applications referring back to the same applications.
Looking Forward - The impact of the 129 page document and related webinar hasn't been fully digested, but the anticipated narrowing of guard rails means that "submarine patents" that extend the life of a patent for 10+ years and patents with 100+ claims covering a high volume of iterations on an invention are being carved out of the system.
All three modifications in combination fit into the theme that the PTO is forcing inventors to document a clearer path for examiners in the filing process in an attempt to clean up the heavy volume of patents being ramped in.
In one day, a suit was filed by an inventor against the PTO claiming irreperable harm as a result of the changes. Whew.
By the way, PTO fees are going up. :P
Wrap
Patent owners and inventors have a very different environment to operate in. Lawyers and experts are still sorting out the changes, so be aware that IP based strategies are about to be impacted by these changes along with Obviousness/KSR and Injunctions/eBay. While the Patent Reform Act of 2007 may not happen, we will be able to look at 2007 as a landmark year for patent reform without a Congressional bill.
For Even More Detail:
RE Seagate Ruling - CAFC
Seagate II - Patently-O
Changes to Continued Examinations, Patent Applications, etc - Dept of Commerce
Lawsuit Launched to Block Continuation Rules - 271PatentBlog
|
|
|
|
Comments (9)
|
|
|
|
Apple Multi-Touch is the New FireWire |
|
By PatentMonkey on
8/20/2007 8:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OOOOH, multi-touch: Apple's going to a multi-touch laptop and mouse.. Think of the possibilities!!!!!
Remember FireWire? Apple poured tons of resources into a superior technology with hopes of driving an industry to see data transfer from device to device in a new, faster way. With 53 patents protecting the project, it represents one of a number of over-hyped, under-utilized areas of technology now that 802.11n has emerged.
Multi-touch on the iPhone is receiving the same hype, but in the long run, its all talk and no walk, here's seven reasons why...
1. Typing is not a multi-touch process [mostly]. Sure, the shift key is an exception, but the Blackberry alternative works well as a next best alternative.
2. Multi-touch isn't being extensively used today on the iPhone and Jobs has said that other devices using multi-touch seems improbable. The feature is being treated for what it is by Apple: tertiary candy more than a critical feature.
3. Multi-touch requires computational resources better used on predictive computing efforts, like predictive word typing algorithms. See #5 for more here.
4. Pictures and movies won't be edited on the 'third screen' anytime soon. Apple's iWeb initiative is brilliant use of interacting with web resources as a "citizen journalist" (I struggle to use the phrase without feeling trendy). Ever use a computer mouse to edit an image? Try translating that to a touch pad, then make your monitor 2" x 3" and you've got a perfect storm for wasting a ton of money. A double tap to zoom works just as well as two finger scaling and that's all you'll be doing with pictures on your cell phone.
6. Voice recognition is the future, and touch interfaces will wither as the technology advances. Oh yeah, Apple has about 50 patents in that area as well.
and...
7. Greasy nasty finger marks all over your beautiful wrappers. As David Mackey aptly noted on Josh's post on the MacBook going Multi in October: "now we can get grimey grease all over our displays on our laptops - not just our phones."
This isn't the death of the iPhone, but Apple's passion for voice recognition over the past 20 years will finally pay off in the next five years that will eat this really fun candy that is a short, not a long.
|
|
|
|
Comments (8)
|
|
|
|
AT&T Wireless Lockdown for iPhone? |
|
By PatentMonkey on
8/16/2007 7:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Recent news that Apple had patented a means for shutting down recharging on a stolen device, we now have information that Cingular conceived an even broader concept: shutting down a wireless device when out of a WiFi zone.
Applicable to a number of devices beyond just cell phones, AT&T has patented a means to lock out stolen (or borrowed) wirelessly enabled gear.
In 2004, Cingular conceived of a means to shut down wireless devices that communicate with a "short range wireless" network. While at the time this was likely viewed as a narrow category, AT&T has an electronics gold mine with the proliferation of Bluetooth and WiFi enabled devices growing by the day from cell phones to laptops to cameras. More specifically, AT&T can offer a service to shut down key functions on your phone, camera, etc when outside of an area.
For details:
1. A method for selectively disabling a wireless-enabled device, said method comprising: transmitting a short range wireless signal using one of (i) said wireless-enabled device and (ii) a second device separate from the wireless-enabled device; receiving a predetermined threshold value from the user of the wireless-enabled device; measuring, using the other of the second device and the wireless-enabled device, signal strength of the signal; automatically disabling at least one function of the wireless-enabled device when the signal strength is less than the predetermined threshold value; and automatically reenabling the at least one function of the wireless-enabled device when the signal strength is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value.
Even more interesting: AT&T could offer location-specific rentals where wireless devices are 'checked in' and would be turned into worthless bricks if they leave the premises. Lots of potential avenues with this one for AT&T to develop.
|
|
|
|
Comments (7)
|
|
|
|
Universal v. Apple on DRM |
|
By PatentMonkey on
8/9/2007 7:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The NYT reports that Universal Music is planning a DRM-free test of selling its music later this year on venues not to include iTunes. In part, Universal wants to understand the impact that DRM has on music purchases, but one can only guess that Apple's proprietary DRM is another point in the matter.
While Jobs and Co. have asked for the end of DRM, Universal appears tentative to boldly push forward with the leading retailer with such a test for fear of being unable to undo what it tests.
Is DRM at issue, or is it the use of proprietary DRM? Further, with the oncoming ease of transferring digital media, is the content creation game changing so dramatically that a new model is required around being the first to consume over residual purchases?
Many questions in an ever changing IP landscape.
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
Sony PS3 Received More Litigation |
|
By PatentMonkey on
8/1/2007 6:55 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sony PS3 has to work through a couple litigation suits and can now add the PS3 cell processor to the list. Sony is on the receiving side of a litigation suit that claims that the PS3 infringes an almost 20 year old patent (via the magic of continuations).
Parallel Processing Corporation, which claims to be International Parallel Machines exclusive licensee, claims rights to US patent 5056000.
Sony's PS3 works on a cell microprocessor that is the result of IBM, Toshiba and Sony's efforts allowing for multi-processing for MMORRPGs. Cool supercomputing gaming stuff to be sure, though, Wikipedia states that IBM's patenting efforts started in 2001 and Parallel's patent application dates back to 1988.
Two independent claims are included in the issued patent, claim 1 is:
1. An apparatus for parallel data processing over a plurality of phases, comprising:
a plurality of processors, any one of said processors operative as a master processor, said master processor including means for generating interconnection switch configuration control signals;
a communication bus for interconnecting each of said processors, for exchange of at least control and synchronization information among each of said processors;
a plurality of multi-access memory modules;
an interconnection switch coupled to each of said processors and each of said multi-access memory modules, and responsive to said interconnection switch control signals from said master processor, for selectively interconnecting any one or more of said processors with one or more of said multi-access memory modules, and whereby any one of said multi-access memory modules is exclusively interconnected to only one of said processors during any given phase of processing;
each of said processors further including local memory, whereby one or more of said processors processes data in its local memory before, after, and during a phase of processing;
said master processor further including means for generating a processing phase commencement signal over said communication bus to the other of said processors, said commencement signal indicating the start of each of said plurality of phases of parallel data processing during which any one or more of said plurality of processors is exclusively interconnected to said one or more multi-access memory modules; and
each of said processors further including means for generating a completion signal over said communication bus to the other of said processors said completion signal indicating completion of each phase of processing.
With a host of Justia Federal District Court Filings
Sony Hit With Patent Suit Over PlayStation3 Cell Processor via Digital Media Wire
Sony facing another PS3 suit via GameSpot
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
Patent Reform More than Just in the Air |
|
By PatentMonkey on
7/27/2007 5:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"May you live in interesting times", or so they say. The USPTO and IP attorneys have been handed very interesting times indeed with recent Supreme Court decisions and Congressional alignment in pushing ahead the Patent Reform Act of 2007. History may show the turning point of frustration to be NTP's infringement case against RIM that almost shut down the Blackberry network. Ever since, a well crafted campaign against patent infringement litigation has swung public opinion towards resolving patent gaming.
A reader's digest version of the Patent Reform Act's main provisions and insights from around the web...
First to File
The U.S. has bucked the trend globally by using a "first to invent" system that allowed proof by inventors showing they conceived an idea before someone else. A filing date at the USPTO is easy to track, and avoids costly contesting cases using less verifiable means to determine the true first inventor.
Post Grant Review
Far more controversial, the Patent Reform Act seeks to open up a window where patents can be reviewed after issuance. Specifically, a patent's claims can be petitioned by anyone up to 12 months after grant or within 12 months after being claimed as an infringer on a patent. Companies riddled with infringement suits, like Microsoft and Intel, agree with this provision as it provides a timely review of whether the patent should have been issued in the first place. Critics complain that the PTO's examiners are in place to do such a review in the first place and that a post-grant review is merely than second guessing and that more emphasis should be put on pre-grant funding and put less pressure on examiners to churn through large volumes of applications each quarter.
Tying Infringement Damages to a Patent Claim
The current system allows a patent owner to take claim to profits of a product that uses it, regardless of the number of other patented concepts a product may use. Semiconductors and the iPhone use many, many different concepts that require a large number of patent owners to grant rights to ensure a "clean" product that doesn't infringe patent claims. The Act's proposal attempts to separate infringement claims to value that the patent includes. Microsoft's loss to Alcatel for $1.5 Billion has been used to show that a patent on multimedia shouldn't lay claim to its OS revenues. Easy to say, harder to assess, especially in court where a judge and jury would need to make a determination of the value of oscillator rings for microprocessors, for example.
Applicant Quality Submissions
The Act requires a search report related to an application and the PTO has the right to deny submissions that do not submit one. While previous law required patent owners to submit relevant prior art that was uncovered during the invention and review process, this provision goes one step further stating applicants need to do a search for patentability as part of preparing a case for filing.
USPTO Allowed to Increase Fees as Needed
Insiders have known for a long time that the PTO is a cash generator for the government. With the boom in applications, the PTO was granted more budget by Congress, but future funding was still tethered to Congressional approval. Finally, the PTO can ensure that it can fund its needs (like hire more examiners) to handle its workload.
What's not in the Act
Hopes for a two-tier system, or deletion of software patents altogether, are not being met. [Maybe the Abstract Factory's proposal of using StarCraft as a means of setting software-based infringements, maybe not, but nice post]
Wrap
Combined with the recent KSR ruling on Obviousness, how good does the auction winner of this $2.86 million patent feel? To be sure, Intellectual Ventures is sitting in a precarious position for monetizing its large pool of filed and purchased patents see a different set of rules get pushed forward in 2007.
Where this all leaves individual inventors and small companies is a great question. Many lobbying efforts are being put forward to ensure big companies and universities' needs are being kept in mind in revisions of the Act.
Do you think we'll see anything voted through this year?
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Checkers is Mastered by Machine |
|
By PatentMonkey on
7/20/2007 9:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 The BBC reports that after thousands of computing hours, a computerized program has solved checkers to always achieve a win or tie against a competitor. While attempting to first understand winning human tactics through heuristic strategies, Professor Schaeffer was able to build a world champion winning program that still occasionally lost. By then moving to non-heuristic strategies and using pure computational force, the team then was able to model every possible scenario to achieve a win or tie.
The advance is considered the most complex game mastered to date.
Computers crack famous board game via [BBC News]
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Microsoft's Cell Phone with Touch Screen |
|
By PatentMonkey on
7/19/2007 9:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What if the Zune was a cell phone? What if it had a touch screen on the back of it? What would you do with it? Microsoft slipped in a patent application covering a cell phone that can be used as a touch screen computer mouse for your PC. After searching on the topic, we've uncovered Microsoft-two-sided-cell-phone-touch-screen-interact-with-your-PC-WiFi-patent-application-goodness. Whew, details after the jump...
This discovery comes on the back of the re-surfaced Apple Zune-like, [ninja fighting] patent application hype last week that CrunchGear and we discussed. Can there be more things connected on this patent application? Not likely.
Here's what they've claimed:
1. A system that facilitates navigating on a display, comprising: a mouse engine component that detects a location; and an interface component that integrates the mouse engine into a handheld communication device.
Let the race begin between Microsoft and Apple in the cell phone arena. Sit back, grab a drink, this is likely to get really interesting even if some of these patent applications are getting a bit silly.
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Patent Searching 411 |
|
By PatentMonkey on
7/17/2007 6:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We get asked about how to search patents, more from people that know a little bit, but want some more insight into how to search a bit better. In this post, we'll give you the five steps we use to perform an initial review of an idea in the patent arena.
While not as comprehensive as Patent It Yourself, techies intersted in some 411, read on...
First, define your idea/product concept to get to the 'right' search results. Take the idea or product you want to research and write down what you think are the top 3-5 relevant words to describe it in technical terms (e.g. laser, pointer, presentation, pen). If you're asking how you find the right words, the best answer: "recursive loops of scanning". As the folks in the competitive intel business say: "follow the 15 minute - 15 hour rule" (or something like that). Specifically, try some search terms, look at results, refine search terms, look at results, rinse, repeat, until the results are looking close to your idea. This high level screen an idea in the patent arena is just like doing the first step of a Google search.
As a note during this step, don't try to do more than discover how big or small your search results area is and clarifying the right set of keywords to use. An ideal search area for the next step is roughly 50-500 patents/applications. If this step takes more than 15-30 minutes, you're either learning too much on specific topics or didn't define your search project narrow enough. Getting the keyterms right for this phase is the goal and should allow you to stop, and tell others how much more work is ahead.
Expert's secret: Of all the sections of the patent, searching keywords in the Abstract yields excellent results with less noise. Avoid searching "all fields" which will over deliver results and "title" which has almost no meaning to the content of the patent.
Second, dig into the right search results and learn. FYI, this is about 10 hours of the "15 hour step". Reviewing patents and applications are best done in two phases:
a. Scan patents (preferably patent front pages w/ image + the summary of the Description section) for those close to the pin. Specifically, read enough about each patent to understand what the idea is. If its good, then save it in a "go deep" list, if not, move on. This step is going to take about a minute a patent, or ~1 to 8 hours, with a typical yield of 5-20 patents of interest.
b. "Go deep" time on the list of patents you have noted. Now that you have a list, print the patents, take notes and read them. Plan on spending about 30 minutes per patent of interest. Note your idea's differences and similarities. Finish by noting the 3-8 words on the cover of the patent that defines the invention for you (meta data that makes for great future reference). For the close results, one last step...
Expert's secret: In the old days, PTO examiners would review classes of patents by flipping through boxes of hard copies, pulling the whole patent for a read if it was relevant. Newer systems at the PTO office allow searchers to do the same process on the PTO's in-house electronic system today. We like the simplicity and efficiency of patent front pages and use them on our site for that reason.
Third, review the referenced by/cited patents the PTO noted. Now that you've narrowed to the key 3-10 patents, you can read each patent's "invention stream" to see the PTO examiner's opinion of related prior and subsequent art. Most patents have 5-20 patent references, so expect about 30 minutes per key patent to scan these lists. Add any related patents to your key patent list as needed.
Expert's secret: An advanced additional step is to review the class/sub classes of the patents you've noted and re-run a broader search in just those areas. Your understanding of the right keywords and the field(s) of invention may shift here, but you'll learn quite a bit if the areas are relevent.
Fourth, check to see if the identified key patents are in force. The PTO has a system, PAIR, that you can use to use to verify whether a patent is active, abandoned or expired (the Status field). If the patent (or application) is not active, then it is free to build upon or use. If the patent is active, and you have concern, then you will want to consider alternative methods to doing the same thing = "work arounds".
Fifth, for the patents in force, see who owns them now. The PTO has another section that provides information on current assignees, or the owners of patents, and maintains records on who the current owner is (yes, many patents change hands). Large companies, like P&G and IBM, have specific programs to license out technology, and all universities have a mandate to see their research commercialized, so while considering work arounds, also consider the benefit of reaching out to the company. Yes, this strategy has risk of failure, but most companies want to expand the reach of technology, not wave a stick at interested parties.
Expert's secret: Patents aren't the only thing that can be licensed if you approach a company. Many firms are interested in knowledge sharing and partnering in manufacturing or supply chain to further exploit know-how.
A last thought: Reviewing the claims is almost always best left to a professional IP attorney. While doing the above will allow many of you to test whether the idea/product you're considering is worth considering patent protection for, the claims of a patent are critical and the language is best reviewed by lawyers. Being educated will make it easier to work with pro's and will allow you to save a lot of money by filtering out the concepts that have been thought of before.
By following these steps, we've found our search projects more predictable in terms of time, better structured and faster to get results.
Good luck and happy searching.
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|