1-Click Rejection Rejected 201
theodp writes "On Wednesday, a three-judge USPTO panel convened at Amazon's request rejected a USPTO Examiner's rejection of Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos's 1-Click patent, ruling that it wasn't obvious to them what the Examiner found obvious. The application has been remanded to the Examiner with instructions to make the obviousness more obvious."
So show basis already (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.news.com/Supreme-Court-loosens-patent-obviousness-test/2100-1014_3-6180220.html [news.com]
The court just wants to show it's done it's job. In this case the patent office has an extra problem in that it previously granted the patent, so undermined it's own right to reject on the grounds of obviousness. But that just means they have to explain why they're rejecting it now (as opposed to accepting it before), it doesn't mean they don't win by default.
Re:Firehose antics... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Catch-22 (Score:1, Informative)
Obvious does NOT mean what you think it does.
Obvious in patent law is a specific term with a specific statutory interpretation. Here is a simple interpretation...
Pretend to be an unimaginative man skilled in the art, look at the cited prior art, look at the patent application, consider the difference. In considering the difference you have to have a motivation to add that difference to the prior art. Sometimes the prior art may teach or fairly suggest alternative approaches. Say for example the application is for a composite thingumagig and one prior art document is for a metal thingumagig which says "other materials may be used" and a second prior art document that says "composites can be used for lots of things". You can then consider combining these two pieces of prior art into an obviousness argument. But what if the first document said "we tried other materials, metals are best no other material will do". Where is the motivation then?
It might come down to the skilled man and this is an important point from the ruling. The judge has asked the examiner to "resolve the level of skill". This means that they are not sure who the skilled man is in this case. The skilled man is a construct and may be an amalgam of different people not just a single person. Is it a computer scientist? a shop keeper? a website designer? an accountant? Remember they have to be unimaginative, they will only do what they know. Also you have to place this man at a time before the application was filed. You must not use hindsight. Thinking that something was obvious after the fact is easy!
It isn't as straight forward as you think.
Captain Obvious to the rescue! (serious) (Score:3, Informative)
function button_click() {
add_item_to_shopping_cart();
if(one_click_enabled) {
checkout_and_buy();
} else {
continue_showing_items();
}
}
function checkout_and_buy() {
process_financial_transaction_to_buy_items_in_shopping_cart();
empty_shopping_cart();
show_thankyou_screen_and_continue_showing_items();
}
function button_checkout() {
show_checkout_screen_and_wait_for_confirmation();
}
there ya go.
Re:But... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Catch-22 (Score:1, Informative)
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure you'll get an email and all that, but how often do most people check their email? I doubt they're as anal about it as I am.
The MP3 'buy' button offered no such cancellation page and actually immediately started the download of the MP3. There was no chance to back out. As I said, there's an option in place now to help that, though.
Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)
(My emphasis added above.)
One thing I've learned in lengthy 'discussions' (... and by 'discussions', I really mean 'arguments') with a group of law grads is that legal definitions of words are a very limited subset of the real world definition. Many words mean exactly one specific thing. No matter how much nuance or implication you can attach to a word in the English language, these things do not apply in Legal English. I can't tell you how many times I simply sat there, agape, as these people were explaining to me that simple words do not have the same meanings that I have attributed to them for my entire life.
The trick is, these magic keywords are sprinkled throughout the text without any indication... so unless you know beforehand that the word "obvious" doesn't really mean "obvious", but rather "something which would be put together in exactly the same way by someone of average skill in the art with the same components at their disposal." (Note: That definition is from memory, rather than a factually accurate quote. It may be off but I cba to look it up.)
Not necessarily any old web developer, given a database of user information, would create a 1-click purchase system (thankfully!) and therefore it's arguably not obvious, in Legal English. Whether or not you agree, that's the logic. It may be internalized, bizarro-world, insane troll logic with little to no bearing on the real world but there is some sort of consistency to it, however twisted.
Re:Explanation... (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.artlum.com/dilbert.gif [artlum.com]