tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post7187820029227123233..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: A mobile phone is a PDA is a calculator (Ex parte Joachim)Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26297439789770828922023-06-03T00:32:52.757-04:002023-06-03T00:32:52.757-04:00knowledge-pedia-free.blogspot.comknowledge-pedia-free.blogspot.comW3tab.sitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15961784375724928550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-37686249271675757062010-03-01T13:41:54.795-05:002010-03-01T13:41:54.795-05:00"That is one of the arguments the Examiner ma..."That is one of the arguments the Examiner made, and as I said in my original blog post, I think that's a ridiculous interpretation of "calculator" in the context of the Joachim application. "<br /><br />Well I'm sorry you're wrong today. Maybe tomorrow will turn out better. <br /><br />"But I do find the BPAIs logic far more reasonable than saying all computers are calculators."<br /><br />That's probably because you don't know what a calculator or a computer really is, i.e. you lack technical training. Like Karren. <br /><br />Things like this are why people with a background in comp sci shouldn't be allowed to prosecute applications. It's like letting someone with a marketing degree prosecute. Give me a break. <br /><br />Although, yes, the board's inherency/implicit argument is decent as well. Just as ignoring the "calculator" part. <br /><br />Instead of limiting claims like this to a "calculator" we should assume that whatever is in the body of the claim is what makes a calculator. That would be a more reasonable way to read claims than we have now. Applicant as lexicographer ya know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-35703471437002130322010-02-26T14:03:12.999-05:002010-02-26T14:03:12.999-05:00>The actual logic used by the Board differs a
...>The actual logic used by the Board differs a <br />>little from the examiner's reasoning.<br />>3) PDA by definition are designed to include <br />>functions such as calendars, calculators, etc <br />>[citing to MS Computer Dictionary.]<br /><br />Thanks for clarifying this. I see my original post did not mention this important fact finding done by the Board. <br /><br />I think both rationales -- "computer performs calculations so is a calculator" AND "PDAs by definition include a calculator" -- are weak. <br /><br />This looks like one of those cases where the Examiner thinks that a 102 is always than better than a 103. Definitely not true here. This case is perfect for a 103. The 102 reference which disclosed the other elements (housing base, carabiner clip, keypad) mentioned PDAs. And is therefore a good candidate to combine with a PDA reference -- one which actually discloses a calculator. <br /><br />I don't question the ultimate result here [no patent granted] but I do question the reasoning and even the findings of fact are suspect.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-36988846710248435152010-02-25T15:18:20.874-05:002010-02-25T15:18:20.874-05:00The actual logic used by the Board differs a littl...The actual logic used by the Board differs a little from the examiner's reasoning.<br /><br />The Board's logic was as follows<br /><br />1) Hwang teaches a radio telephone<br />2) Hwang teaches a radio telephone can include PDA functions;<br />3) PDA by definition are designed to include functions such as calendars, calculators, etc (Board cites to Microsoft Computer Dictionary apparently doing a little fact finding on its own)<br /><br />Therefore Hwang disclose a telephone which is a PDA which is a calculator. <br /><br />I think the use of the dictionary to show inherency is the weakest part of this argument. But I do find the BPAIs logic far more reasonable than saying all computers are calculators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-76828726574718726772010-02-25T12:30:43.112-05:002010-02-25T12:30:43.112-05:00>What does a mobile phone have to do with a >...>What does a mobile phone have to do with a >PDA/portable computer? <br /><br />All three are devices mentioned in the reference and which the Examiner referred to for teaching a calculator. <br /><br />I'll stick with the PDA, and say the same thing: a PDA is not *inherently* a calculator, as that term is understood by a POSITA. <br /><br />>Please, show me a (portable or stationary) <br />>computer that is not a calculator<br /><br />Ah, now we're achieving some clarity. You're *not* saying that computer inherently *provides a calculator program*. [Because it's possible to have a computer without such a program.] <br /><br />Instead, you're saying that a computer is a calculator because it performs calculations ... ie, that's what computers do when they execute instructions. Did I get this right?<br /><br />That is one of the arguments the Examiner made, and as I said in my original blog post, I think that's a ridiculous interpretation of "calculator" in the context of the Joachim application. <br /><br />I say a POSITA reading the Joachim application would view "calculator" more narrowly. To include special-purpose calculator devices. And probably other electronics devices that execute a calculator program allowing the user to perform calculations.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-74715729868775124932010-02-24T21:17:07.793-05:002010-02-24T21:17:07.793-05:00"You're telling me that a mobile phone IS..."You're telling me that a mobile phone IS a calculator? Inherently? Gotta disagree. "<br /><br />What does a mobile phone have to do with a PDA/portable computer? Nothing. <br /><br />Furthermore, why would a calculator have to provide a calculator function to a user to be a calculator? Stop thinking in retar ded functional terms and start thinking about what a machine IS. Please, show me a (portable or stationary) computer that is not a calculator. I have yet to see one. I've seen plenty that offer no calculator function to the user, but I've seen none that aren't, inside, a calculator. Nor have I even heard a rumor about such a thing. In fact it seems rather impossible to have a computer at all without the machine being able to calculate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-30204397253664369792010-02-24T11:03:05.283-05:002010-02-24T11:03:05.283-05:00>The reference, as you describe it, plainly
&g...>The reference, as you describe it, plainly <br />>discloses a calculator. <br /><br />Really? An actual calculator? <br /><br />What I said about the reference - paraphrasing and summarizing from the Board decision - is <br />that it taught "electronic devices, such as mobile phones, PDAs, and portable computers."<br /><br />You're telling me that a mobile phone IS a calculator? Inherently? Gotta disagree. <br /> <br />Those aren't calculators. Yes, that many electronic devices include software that provides calculator functions -- e.g. calc.exe. But that's *not* what the Board based it's decision on. <br /><br />Lest you chastise me for arguing technicalities or acting like a lawyer ... well, yes, I am a lawyer and I do argue the facts on the record. I'm sure that infuriates some folks, but that's my role. <br /><br />Under the facts presented by the Board, I just don't see that the reference disclosed a calculator.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-76274996027177140042010-02-24T08:47:24.795-05:002010-02-24T08:47:24.795-05:00"I didn't bring it up because the Board d..."I didn't bring it up because the Board didn't."<br /><br />See, that's what you get for actually reading the case before commenting on it! :)<br /><br />You're right - we don't disagree. Having read the case now, I think the Board's analysis is a bit of a stretch. This is one of those cases where a bad claim makes bad law. In view of the reference, it's clear (to me, at least) that there's nothing new here. But it sure would be nice if the Board could avoid relying on handstands to reject the claim, especially when there is a clearer approach available.Leopold Bloomhttp://www.dublin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89950841457274201122010-02-23T18:38:24.405-05:002010-02-23T18:38:24.405-05:00The reference, as you describe it, plainly disclos...The reference, as you describe it, plainly discloses a calculator. The end. The board need say no more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-34733565052777864162010-02-23T10:21:36.884-05:002010-02-23T10:21:36.884-05:00Leopold, thanks for bringing up the two "elep...Leopold, thanks for bringing up the two "elephant in the room" issues that I didn't mention: non-limiting preamble and capable-of. <br /><br />These are good reasons why the Applicant probably would have lost even if the "PDA is a calculator" issue had gone the other way. Wonder why the Board didn't decide on those easy grounds.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-41519621508286512562010-02-23T10:18:22.789-05:002010-02-23T10:18:22.789-05:00There's plenty of room for disagreement on thi...There's plenty of room for disagreement on this blog! But I'm not sure we really disagree, because I think we're talking about different things :) <br /><br />You say the reference anticipates because the preamble "calculator" shouldn't be given patentable weight. <br /><br />I didn't say anything about this issue -- though it's an obvious part of a real analysis, so maybe I should have. <br /><br />I didn't bring it up because the Board didn't. Instead, the Board went on for pages about why the reference *did* teach a calculator. <br /><br />If the Board performed the straightforward analysis that you did, and simply said "calculator not given patentable weight, reference teaches the structural and functional limitations" -- well, I probably wouldn't have blogged about the case.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-1664710608671302292010-02-23T10:00:10.879-05:002010-02-23T10:00:10.879-05:00Karen, I disagree with you on this one. Note that...Karen, I disagree with you on this one. Note that the term "calculator" appears only in the preamble, and, as far as I can tell, doesn't inform the rest of the claim other than suggesting that the context is a portable electronic apparatus. So "calculator" is not a limiting term, is it? It seems to me that all it does, even when properly read in the context of the specification, is to place us in the general context of a portable electronic device.<br /><br />The only part of the body of the claim that relates to the "calculator" function is the "keypad data input component." But the limiting description of that, "capable of inputting numeric data and numeric calculation function commands," is pretty weak. The claim doesn't even say that the keys are ACTUALLY configured for numeric input and mathematical function selection, it simply says that the keypad component is capable of it. I think it's difficult to argue that the keypad on my mobile phone is incapable of inputting numbers and function selections, even if the phone is not yet programmed with a calculator application.Leopold Bloomhttp://www.dublin.comnoreply@blogger.com