Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Pinch as Devoid of Any Rights to Patentability: The Finger Tap as Devoid of Any Rights to Patentability: Human Motion is Not Patentable and So the U.S. Supreme Court Will Ultimately Hold

We posted previously about wrongfully granted pinch to zoom patent, but we want to get back to that pinch patent and here also the finger tap patent as examples of the kinds of incompetently granted patents for human motion that the U.S. Supreme Court would -- and we hope in the near future will -- soon throw out as a priori unpatentable.

HUMAN MOTIONS should never be patentable because modern man did not invent them. NONE of them. The idea that a human motion is patentable if applied to some particular application is absurd, because it is still the specific human motion -- for whatever reason! -- that is being monopolized for some purpose and it is an invention NOT made by the inventor. All such inventions trying to claim any human motion as a part of the invention are frauds.

Human motions are unique to to all of us as genetic beings made by the Creator and the idea that a monopolistic greedy company like Apple or the people responsible for this nonsense think they can lay claim to any human motion for commercial purposes is a desolation of the human spirit.

It is boundless material greed at its worst apex.

Most human tools require hands and fingers to operate them and there is nothing "inventive" about developing a product that uses hands and fingers to accomplish a task.

The clueless people who have stupidly granted and thus far even upheld the finger pinch and finger tap patents in court must have grown up in households without cooking or music, where a pinch of salt and the gesture affiliated with adding a pinch of salt to something, or the tapping of fingers to music are commonplace occurrences.  These motions are NOT Apple inventions, thank you. We have been pinching and tapping long before YOU folks.

In fact, we have known people who used finger tapping as a means of command to say, "come here", long before Apple. NOT an Apple invention.

In fact, "finger tapping" is such a simple and ancient human motion that it is used e.g. in medical physics. See Functional neuroimaging correlates of finger-tapping task variations: An ALE meta-analysis, which we quote below:
"Finger-tapping tasks are commonly used to study the human motor system in functional neuroimaging studies. Tapping tasks have the advantage of being simple enough to use in the study of both normal control subjects as well as those with neuropathologies affecting the motor system, while being flexible enough to accommodate numerous modifications. These tasks can vary across studies both by the use or lack of a pacing stimulus and in the relative complexity of the tapping task."
In other words, NOT an Apple invention. NEVER.

The people in the patent industry, on both sides of the fence, live in a "patent" dream world of their own creation that has nothing to do with reality.

Take a look at the patents wrongfully granted for "touch scrolling".

Many people I know have been using their finger(s) to scroll down the lines in books, journals and newspapers since long before the digital era came to the scene. There is nothing INVENTIVE -- i.e. non-obvious and not anticipated by "prior art" -- in applying THAT scrolling to electronic displays.

Where in God's name the invention there is supposed to be is known only to the handful of deluded souls active in this area of technology and law.

Let me assure you folks, YOU did not invent finger scrolling of text. You merely applied it to electronic devices.

Well, that is OBVIOUS. Nothing more obvious than that.

Indeed, that is why we have finger scrolling and not tongue scrolling. Because of the prior art and because that is the OBVIOUS way to do it.

The fact that SOME human motion is selected for SOME particular digital task by no means makes it thereby patentable. NEVER.


PONG "ball image" Bounce-Back and Apple "text list" Bounce-Back: Is There a Patentable Non-Obvious Difference Not Anticipated by Prior Art? Of Course Not.

We are strict opponents of patents for software and a "bounce-back" patent is one example of why software patents are absurd. (See our previous postings at PONG ! About that Ridiculously Granted Bounce-Back Scrolling Patent US 7469381 Which Is Anticipated by the Prior Art and Obviousness of the Old Atari Game of PONG and PONG Revisited: Atari Apple Sigma SLAC and Prior Art for Obvious Developments of the State of the Art in the Digital World.)

Let us assume YOU owned the "bounce-back" patent for an image moving on a display. Would it make any difference to YOU as the patent-holder what the "name" of the gadget using your "bounce-back" would be? Video game display, PC display, tablet display, pad display, phone display, touch display, etc.

ANY bounce-back use would be a clear patent infringement.

A display is a display. You move images or text or lists around on it. So if you had a bounce-back patent, it would obviously apply to ALL displays.

It is therefore incorrect to argue, as has been done, that the Apple "bounce-back" patent is somehow vastly different from the Atari PONG "bounce-back" because the gadget in one case is a video game and in the other case a so-called "touch" gadget. That is irrelevant. Both gadgets are controlled by hand, one indirectly, one more directly, but that would not much change the programming. You could have a modern touch-screen controlled PONG and use virtually the same bounce-back code as in the original machine.

WHERE is the NEW invention? that is the patent question.

Software programming code is written to move defined points on a display and anyone capable of software programming can move such points in myriad ways. The principle of moving points on a screen hitting a pre-defined point and then moving in a different direction was in use from almost the very origin of software programming. Where is the NEW non-obvious invention?

In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court redefined the standard of "obviousness" in patent cases inter alia as follows:
"In KSR, the Supreme Court relied on the precedent in the Sakraida case regarding the issue of obviousness in cases of combinations or arrangements of prior art. Justice Kennedy wrote:
"[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U. S. 273 (1976), the Court derived from the precedents 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. Id., at 282. 
The principles underlying these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, §103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida and Anderson’s-Black Rock are illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.""
The Atari game PONG necessarily contains software code that controls the "bounce-back" feature of the image of the ball -- as defined by a set of coordinates -- and the Apple code controls the "bounce-back" feature of text lists -- as defined by similar set of coordinates. Big difference? Of course not. Both text lists and images -- and their locations -- are defined by software code -- and sections of that code are moved around.

Essentially, we know that the software code in each case -- even if we do not know any of the specific programming code in question -- must contain a routine that keeps track of where an image viz. text or list is located on a display and then define its movement in terms of certain x,y type parameters.

There is no unique combination here not obvious to anyone skilled in the art. It is merely a skillful application of prior art in an obvious combination.

NOT rightly patentable. In our opinion.


The ISandIS Network

Our Websites and Blogs: 3D Printing and More 99 is not 100 Aabecis AK Photo Blog Ancient Egypt Weblog Ancient Signs (the book) Ancient World Blog AndisKaulins.com Anthropomorphic Design Archaeology Travel Photos (blog) Archaeology Travel Photos (Flickr) Archaeo Pundit Arts Pundit Astrology and Birth Baltic Coachman Bible Pundit Biotechnology Pundit Book Pundit Chronology of the Ancient World Computer Pundit DVD Pundit Easter Island Script Echolat edu.edu Einstein’s Voice Energy Environment and Climate Blog Etruscan Bronze Liver of Piacenza EU Laws EU Legal EU Pundit FaceBook Pundit Gadget Pundit Garden Pundit Golf Pundit Google Pundit Gourmet Pundit Hand Proof HousePundit Human Migrations Idea Pundit Illyrian Language Indus Valley Script Infinity One : The Secret of the First Disk (the game) Jostandis Journal Pundit Kaulins Genealogy Blog Kaulinsium Kiel & Kieler Latvian Blog LawPundit.com Law Pundit Blog LexiLine.com LexiLine Group Lexiline Journal Library Pundit Lingwhizt LinkedIn Literary Pundit Magnifichess Make it Music Maps and Cartography Megalithic World Megaliths Blog) Megaliths.net Minoan Culture Mutatis Mutandis Nanotech Pundit Nostratic Languages Official Pundit Phaistos Disc Pharaonic Hieroglyphs Photo Blog of the World Pinterest Prehistoric Art Pundit Private Wealth Blog PunditMania Quanticalian Quick to Travel Quill Pundit Road Pundit Shelfari SlideShare (akaulins) Sport Pundit Star Pundit Stars Stones and Scholars (blog) Stars Stones and Scholars (book) Stonehenge Pundit The Enchanted Glass Twitter Pundit UbiquitousPundit Vision of Change VoicePundit WatchPundit Wine Pundit Word Pundit xistmz YahooPundit zistmz