4 ms·

(1) “to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image”; (2) “to continuously move the unlock i

by codeka 12y ago

(1) “to detect contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image”; (2) “to continuously move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact”; (3) “to unlock the hand held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display”; and (4) “visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.” It really sounds like Apple's lawyers are struggling to make "drag the image to unlock" sound more complicated than it really is.

throwawaykf05 12y ago
No, Apple's lawyers are just trying to make it sound more concrete than Samsung's lawyers are trying to make it sound abstract. The key difference is complexity has no bearing on patentability, but abstractness does. To be fair, the claims do require all those elements, so it really is narrower than "moving an image to unlock a device". You could imagine a number of implementations of the latter that would not be covered by the claims.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  Yes, but what aspect of it is novel? Images, touch screens, animation? None of it is new; "the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." I would venture to say the patent NEVER should have been granted, even under pre-Alice conditions.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    Parent was talking about complexity, I simply corrected them to say that it was about abstraction, and why it mattered. I was not making any point about the novelty or other quality metrics of the patent. However, now that you've brought it up, possibly outside of material science, every invention in the history of engineering falls under the description of "old elements doing old things producing expected results". Taking that quote out of context misses a very important question: was it obvious beforehand that such a result was desirable enough to put those elements together? The answer to your question of "what's novel" is, literally, the combination of elements and the difference it presents over prior art. However, at a higher level, what this quantitative approach misses is this: slide-to-unlock provides a convenient, usable and visually appealing way to unlock a phone. You'll note that these adjectives are some that Apple users regularly attribute to Apple products (since before the iPhone!). These qualities are arguably a primary reason for their success. Sure, when boiled down to their implementation, they don't look so impressive, yet few others are said to match Apple's level of polish. Why is that the case if such features are so easy to implement? Maybe because the feature itself is not obvious. Such qualitative aspects are not always apparent from looking at the claims alone.

by codeka 12y ago

throwawaykf05 12y ago

No, Apple's lawyers are just trying to make it sound more concrete than Samsung's lawyers are trying to make it sound abstract. The key difference is complexity has no bearing on patentability, but abstractness does. To be fair, the claims do require all those elements, so it really is narrower than "moving an image to unlock a device". You could imagine a number of implementations of the latter that would not be covered by the claims.

Rapzid 12y ago
Yes, but what aspect of it is novel? Images, touch screens, animation? None of it is new; "the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." I would venture to say the patent NEVER should have been granted, even under pre-Alice conditions.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  Parent was talking about complexity, I simply corrected them to say that it was about abstraction, and why it mattered. I was not making any point about the novelty or other quality metrics of the patent. However, now that you've brought it up, possibly outside of material science, every invention in the history of engineering falls under the description of "old elements doing old things producing expected results". Taking that quote out of context misses a very important question: was it obvious beforehand that such a result was desirable enough to put those elements together? The answer to your question of "what's novel" is, literally, the combination of elements and the difference it presents over prior art. However, at a higher level, what this quantitative approach misses is this: slide-to-unlock provides a convenient, usable and visually appealing way to unlock a phone. You'll note that these adjectives are some that Apple users regularly attribute to Apple products (since before the iPhone!). These qualities are arguably a primary reason for their success. Sure, when boiled down to their implementation, they don't look so impressive, yet few others are said to match Apple's level of polish. Why is that the case if such features are so easy to implement? Maybe because the feature itself is not obvious. Such qualitative aspects are not always apparent from looking at the claims alone.