4 ms·
Beyond that, we need to consider priority dates when determining when something was 'invented' when it comes to prior art. Note the application referenced down
by roc 14y ago
Beyond that, we need to consider priority dates when determining when something was 'invented' when it comes to prior art.
Note the application referenced downthread (20060238520) is a continuation of a 2004 filing, itself a continuation of a 2001 filing, itself a divisional of a 1999 filing which claimed priority based on a provisional 1998 filing. [1]
So to challenge that application, you'd need to find art circa at least 1998. And even then you have to consider the USPTO's (now legacy) practice of recognizing date of invention, rather than filing. Which means you may have to find art even older than 1998, to get that bit invalidated.
[1] Patent applications are rarely straightforward affairs. The process of mapping what we colloquially think of as "an invention" (awesome new widget) to patent applications often entails the creation of a family of patent applications. It gets very messy, very quickly.
- 001sky 14y agoSo this expires 1998+20=2018?
- Retric 14y agoNo, it expires based on when it was granted not the priority date. However, different parts of the same patent can have different priority dates if they where not in the initial filing. So, some prior art after 1998 may still be relevant.
- astrodust 14y agoThis is why a lot of patent trolls would drag their feet as long as possible in the hopes that someone would actually research, prototype and bring to market what they've "invented". These so-called submarine patents then surface to sink the company who's done all the work. It's my understanding that the USPTO is trying to limit the ability of companies to do this though.
- 001sky 14y ago^ Wayne Westerman, 1999. Hand Tracking, Finger Identification, and Chordic Manipulation on a Multi-Touch Surface http://www.ece.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf http://www.ece.udel.edu/~westerma/main.pdf Edit: Ref, note [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FingerWorks
- roc 14y agoWayne Westerman is one of the identified Inventors. Published papers/articles by the inventors can count against their being able to get a patent, dependent upon the character of the disclosure (did they tell a couple friends or write a widely circulated article? etc) and how long before the filing that disclosure was made. Since this appears to be dated after the priority date, I don't think it would pose any problem, even if it were published in a professional journal.