4 ms·

Yes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent,

by biot 11y ago

Yes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent, they claim novelty over having a single graphical element that the user needs to move with predefined start and end points. Another claim expands upon that saying there is a graphical arrow showing direction of movement. Another claim says there is help text explaining to the user what to do. So yeah, on the surface one can easily state "they both have slide to unlock" but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to show that there exists prior art for the specific claims Apple made in its patent. The Neonode is not prior art for those claims.

jacquesm 11y ago
Funny, I have a slide-to-unlock device on my front door that fits that specification exactly, the only difference is that it is not 'on a computer'. It's a ridiculous patent.
- tremon 11y ago
  Yeah, but it doesn't come with a help text explaining to the user what to do.
  - rasz_pl 11y ago
    actually it does, right on the box it came in
Oletros 11y ago
> The Neonode is not prior art for those claims. Well, CAFC thinks that Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious: > We reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant. From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Page 28
- biot 11y ago
  From the case: > Apple asserted claim 8 of the ’721 patent This is the one claim Apple asserted. This patent claim states: > 8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions > to display visual cues to communicate a direction of > movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device. That the court found this one claim to be obvious doesn't negate the remaining 14 claims of the patent (excepting, perhaps, claims 9 and 10 that build on claim 8). Of course, it doesn't mean that the remaining claims can't be obvious, perhaps even blindingly so. However, what you can't do is point to this case and say "Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious"; the best you can do is point to this case and say "Claim 8 of Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious".
  - Oletros 11y ago
    Your original post said that Neonode is not prior art for the claim asserted. The CAFC disagree with you, they used Neonode to rule that the claim 8 is obvious. I don't know what are you arguing right now
    - biot 11y ago
      > Your original post said that Neonode is not prior art for > the claim asserted. That is not true. The phrase "the claim asserted" was not part of my original post; I only used that wording after you replied to my original post with the court case, from which I quoted. My original point (which I'll quote for convenience) was that "Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement". Based on the video in the link elosyt posted, the Neonode does not have an unlock image (claim 1) that must be dragged along a channel (claim 3) with visual cues (claim 4) of text (claim 5) and an arrow showing direction (claim 6), etc. etc. Instead, Neonode appears to have an invisible unlock method with none of the visual elements that Apple claims in its patent. That I was unaware that Neonode was found to be prior art for a single claim (claim 8) doesn't invalidate my original point that there are many claims in Apple's patent for which Neonode doesn't look to be prior art. Finding one claim to be obvious and have prior art does not invalidate the patent as a whole; the other claims remain. From Wikipedia[0]: > If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, > however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and > may still be broad enough to bar competitors from > valuable commercial territory. This is why my original post says: > ... but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to > show that there exists prior art for the specific claims > Apple made in its patent. You'll note I used "claims" in the plural, which was intentional. What you wrote: > Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious is untrue as it's only one claim in the court case you linked which was found to be obvious. The court case was silent on the other claims of the patent in question and, as such, the remaining claims stand until someone else comes along and challenges them to demonstrate prior art/obviousness. If my legal understanding is incorrect on this, I welcome any corrections. > I don't know what are you arguing right now I hope that clears it up. I'm not trying to argue for software patents. I think most of them are actually obvious and silly and amount to protecting something that took an entire minute to think up. That said, if software patents exist then I don't see any reason to not speak with precision about patents, and speaking precisely about patents means discussing specific claims not vagaries about the concept as a whole. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c...
bbcbasic 11y ago
HN should patent the up/down arrows. Not that original but these ones are tiny and don't let you change you mind and I am guessing these is no prior art for that. Also the way it shades the text grey when you get downvoted.

by biot 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

Funny, I have a slide-to-unlock device on my front door that fits that specification exactly, the only difference is that it is not 'on a computer'. It's a ridiculous patent.

tremon 11y ago
Yeah, but it doesn't come with a help text explaining to the user what to do.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  actually it does, right on the box it came in

Oletros 11y ago

> The Neonode is not prior art for those claims. Well, CAFC thinks that Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious: > We reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant. From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Page 28

biot 11y ago
From the case: > Apple asserted claim 8 of the ’721 patent This is the one claim Apple asserted. This patent claim states: > 8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions > to display visual cues to communicate a direction of > movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device. That the court found this one claim to be obvious doesn't negate the remaining 14 claims of the patent (excepting, perhaps, claims 9 and 10 that build on claim 8). Of course, it doesn't mean that the remaining claims can't be obvious, perhaps even blindingly so. However, what you can't do is point to this case and say "Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious"; the best you can do is point to this case and say "Claim 8 of Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious".
- Oletros 11y ago
  Your original post said that Neonode is not prior art for the claim asserted. The CAFC disagree with you, they used Neonode to rule that the claim 8 is obvious. I don't know what are you arguing right now
  - biot 11y ago
    > Your original post said that Neonode is not prior art for > the claim asserted. That is not true. The phrase "the claim asserted" was not part of my original post; I only used that wording after you replied to my original post with the court case, from which I quoted. My original point (which I'll quote for convenience) was that "Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement". Based on the video in the link elosyt posted, the Neonode does not have an unlock image (claim 1) that must be dragged along a channel (claim 3) with visual cues (claim 4) of text (claim 5) and an arrow showing direction (claim 6), etc. etc. Instead, Neonode appears to have an invisible unlock method with none of the visual elements that Apple claims in its patent. That I was unaware that Neonode was found to be prior art for a single claim (claim 8) doesn't invalidate my original point that there are many claims in Apple's patent for which Neonode doesn't look to be prior art. Finding one claim to be obvious and have prior art does not invalidate the patent as a whole; the other claims remain. From Wikipedia[0]: > If the independent claim is determined to be invalid, > however, a dependent claim may nevertheless survive, and > may still be broad enough to bar competitors from > valuable commercial territory. This is why my original post says: > ... but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to > show that there exists prior art for the specific claims > Apple made in its patent. You'll note I used "claims" in the plural, which was intentional. What you wrote: > Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious is untrue as it's only one claim in the court case you linked which was found to be obvious. The court case was silent on the other claims of the patent in question and, as such, the remaining claims stand until someone else comes along and challenges them to demonstrate prior art/obviousness. If my legal understanding is incorrect on this, I welcome any corrections. > I don't know what are you arguing right now I hope that clears it up. I'm not trying to argue for software patents. I think most of them are actually obvious and silly and amount to protecting something that took an entire minute to think up. That said, if software patents exist then I don't see any reason to not speak with precision about patents, and speaking precisely about patents means discussing specific claims not vagaries about the concept as a whole. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_categories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_claim#Basic_types_and_c...

bbcbasic 11y ago

HN should patent the up/down arrows. Not that original but these ones are tiny and don't let you change you mind and I am guessing these is no prior art for that. Also the way it shades the text grey when you get downvoted.