Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Communications

USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent 124

Posted by CowboyNeal from the seen-coming dept.
theodp writes "Remember that dicey 1996 SBC Structured Document Browser patent that Slashdot readers immediately called BS on back in 2003? Two-and-a-half years later, a USPTO Director-ordered reexam reached the same conclusion, and a final rejection was quietly issued last month."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent More

USPTO Rejects SBC Browser Patent

Comments Filter:

  • What About the Others? (Score:5, Funny)

    by TPIRman ( 142895 ) * on Friday June 24, 2005 @12:39AM (#12897915)
    That's great news, but what about the other patents included in that same re-examination order [uspto.gov]? What's the status of "LABEL FOR SPOOLED WIRE PRODUCTS"? Will I finally be able to market my "METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT" without fear of legal reprisal? We need to know!
    • in soviet russia "in soviet russia" jokes kill you...
    • Well it seems that the METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE was rejected. From the report [uspto.gov]:

      Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Evans '259.

      Claim 1 is drawn to a method for improving peri-anal hygiene comprising the steps of providing and dispensing a gel onto a sheet of toilet paper, applying the gel to an anal area using the paper as an applicator and wiping the area with a a dry sheet of toilet paper to dry the area of any residual moisture. The gel is viscous enough to

  • 7 Years? (Score:5, Funny)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @12:39AM (#12897917)
    Remember that dicey 1996 SBC Structured Document Browser patent that Slashdot readers immediately called BS on back in 2003

    You've been examining patents too long if you consider reacting in 2003 to an action in 1996 immediate. Or are you a congressman?

  • Peri-Anal Hygiene and Patents (Score:5, Funny)

    by debilo ( 612116 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @12:42AM (#12897929)
    I followed the links provided in the submission to this page [uspto.gov] containing a list of other reexaminations, where I found this gem:

    6,520,942 Reexam. C.N. 90/006,758, Ordered Date: Sept. 24, 2003, Cl. 604/290,
    Title: METHOD TO IMPROVE PERI-ANAL HYGIENE AFTER A BOWEL MOVEMENT

    How fitting.
    • A bunch of your Senators have that area stretched to extreme proportions quite regularly. They refer to this as "Political Fund Raising".
      A bit of cream helps.
      • A bunch of your Senators have that area stretched to extreme proportions quite regularly. They refer to this as "Political Fund Raising".
        A bit of cream helps.

        Seems like we're close to finding out who Goatseman really is.
      • dunno about the fund raising but, they passed the low flow toilet laws making most thicker competing products obsolite.

        I interupted my search for a carter model N carb to see what PERI-ANAL means. Evedently it is somewhat serious. The results contain many words i don't cannot pronounce. To think the delay of this patten might delay my treatment and my ability to avoid worse conditions. i wonder if my insurance would cover it?
    • Would this be a SCO stock cert?

  • Quietly? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Friday June 24, 2005 @12:45AM (#12897938) Journal
    All patents are issued or denied quietly. It's usually rumor sites like Slashdot and www.eff.org that make these quiet affairs larger than life.

  • Read before posting (Score:5, Informative)

    by anonympa ( 894695 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @12:58AM (#12897987)
    I have bad news for you all. A final rejection just means that the claims have been rejected for the second time. It's not over yet...!
    • At least your senators know whats going to happen the next time someone pulls this crap.
      • They're going to show up at the senator's door with a dump truck full of money?
        • Not exactly..

          By 6 p.m. on Tuesday, the 27 members of the Senate Appropriations Committee received more than 11,000 emails and faxes. That's nearly 500 faxes an hour. Dianne Feinstein alone received more than 2,600 messages in her inbox. Kay Hutchison, the senior senator for Texas, received 1,441 letters.


          Good job guys. I wish people in Canada were that passionate about their government.
    • It's true that lots can happen from this point on....the owner can file a response after final rejection (it just can't be entered/considered as a matter of right as a response to a non-final rejection can), or the owner can appeal to the Board or can file a continuation (now that I think of it these might not be possible for a reexam, but I'm too lazy to research this).

      More particularly the claims were rejected under 35 USC 102(e) over another patent, 5,877,765, which someone else in this discussion has p

  • Something will never change (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guardiangod ( 880192 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:10AM (#12898031)
    Pattent System [slashdot.org]
    by spooje on Wednesday November 12, @10:01AM (#7453079)

    Great now if we can just get the USPTO to review the entire pattent process we should be all set.

    It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something.

    • "It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something."

      How many slashdotters are patent examiners, patent attorneys, federal judges or congresspersons?

    • Re:Um, like it's a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:21AM (#12898068)

      How many other things does the governent "talk" about doing? Let's see...a couple of biggies are campaign finance reform (never happened), and social security. I truly believe that if they ever *did* accomplish anything with respect to these issues, they'd feel like there wouldn't be anything left to promise during the next election. The formula seems to be, "promise, do nothing, rinse, repeat".
      • And don't forget the legislation that falls into the "never going to actually get passed, but embarrasses our opponent".
      • There have been numerous "campaign finance reform" bills in recent memory. So far, all they've been good at is securing the incumbent however. The most recent one has given quite a bit of power to the owners of media companies. What do you call a country ruled by its press? Mediocracy?
      • Government is mostly talk and inaction, punctuated by bad actions, and the rare (perhaps accidental) constructive action. But the two examples you gave aren't examples of government inaction.

        Campaign finance was reformed a coulple of years ago, making some real changes to the system. It wasn't nearly enough, and didn't address the real problem, simple bribery called contributions, especially from corporations. But they did back up their words with actions.

        Social Security reform is mostly talk. The actions
        • Campaign finance was reformed a coulple of years ago, making some real changes to the system. It wasn't nearly enough, and didn't address the real problem, simple bribery called contributions, especially from corporations. But they did back up their words with actions.

          The fact that it wasn't nearly enough is exactly why I believe it was one of many token gestures crafted to give the impression that something is being done, but for all intents and purposes, results in very little real change. We're asking
    • How about the Metric system here in the US...

      For years in elementary school they said learn the metric system... we're switching by 1996... and what did they get... a generation of people who know how to measure the right amount of drugs....
    • It is sad that after 1 1/2 year, we are still talking about reforming the patent system, instead of actually doing something.

      I've posted about this numerous times.

      The first hurdle "we" face is that as a group defined by our membership or fandom of Slashdot, "we" don't know the first thing about how the patent system works. There are still people who do not understand that "obviousness", as regards patents, is based entirely upon evidence found in prior art, not some intangible concept of being "trivial

      • There are still people who do not understand that "obviousness", as regards patents, is based entirely upon evidence found in prior art, not some intangible concept of being "trivial" or "simple".

        That's the problem, and exactly what we are complaining about. There should be a test for obviousness, and neccessarily it would be a subjective call on how simple or trivial something is. But right now, the patent office can't seem to be bothered to reject obvious or trivial solutions, and locking up the obvious

        • Prior art is a test for originality, not obviousness. We need to test for both.

          There IS a test for obviousness and it is based on the prior art.

          See my response to the other poster, as well. Graham v. Deere (in 1966) established a test for obviousness specifically because the language is so vague. You can read about Graham v. Deere in MPEP 2141 (just Google for "MPEP 2141").

          The concept IS based on the prior art in the sense that the test for obviousness allows you to "disassemble" the invention and l

      • "we" don't know the first thing about how the patent system works

        Yes, we do. It's arbitrary, capricious, corrupt, deeply flawed, and runs contrary to common sense. Anyone who's read the patent clause of the Constitution can tell you that the US patent system, as currently implemented, runs completely contrary to the framer's expressed intent for granting patents.

        The accepted definition of "obvious" is, well, obvious, and it it's the definition the patent office uses. Only a sleazy lawyer would t

        • Hi, thanks for proving my point.

          Yes, we do. It's arbitrary, capricious, corrupt, deeply flawed, and runs contrary to common sense. Anyone who's read the patent clause of the Constitution can tell you that the US patent system, as currently implemented, runs completely contrary to the framer's expressed intent for granting patents.

          This is called "trolling". You can look it up in the internet jargon file. Also, before you start sounding like an expert what with the reference to "the patent clause of the

          • Also, before you start sounding like an expert what with the reference to "the patent clause of the Constitution", you might want to contemplate the genuine expertise that others might have. Just a thought

            Let's see:

            To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

            -- Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution (Powers of Congress)

            Pretty fucking simple, don't you think? It

            • I prefer to read the OED to get my definitions of words in the English language.

              Try that in traffic court, Mr. MENSA. They'll even laugh at you there.

              I could give a flying fuck what the patent examiner's manual has to say, and my only interest in Graham v. Deere is to hold it up as an example of how a single bad ruling can poison the legal system for years afterwards. Holding up the patent manual as if it were Holy Gospel does nothing to change the fact it is an piece of crap which needs to be flushed.

              • Let's see if we can get the concept through your microscopic pea brain:
                You are talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE. I am talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. The gaping disparity between the two demonstrates that the system is defective.

                It's really nice that you can cite the case where the meaning of the word "obvious" was redefined to have a different meaning than what the rest of the English-speaking world uses. All that means we can use it to pinpoint exactly when and where things went wro

                • You are talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE. I am talking about THE WAY THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE. The gaping disparity between the two demonstrates that the system is defective.

                  And this is where you are from a conversation that started with:

                  The first hurdle "we" face is that as a group defined by our membership or fandom of Slashdot, "we" don't know the first thing about how the patent system works.

                  I believe I'm showing great restraint and respect when I ask, "What the fuck are you babbling about?"

                  T

  • So the original patent was 1996, the first talk about it was 2003, and it was rejected a month ago? This is almost as bad as that glass in space [slashdot.org] article.

    Tonight in the news: Computer programmers have stopped producing software for the Apple ][e. Film at 11.
    • Uh...I guarantee you there is somebody out there writing Apple ][e software...and yes, they probably have Linux running on it, too. Nerds are a strange and wonderful species.
      • I'd be surprised if it ran linux. Linux relies on a MMU, ask an apple ][ for that and it'll laugh at you, and though uClinux has done something about that I don't think it's minimal enough yet. Besides, part of the fun of hardware like that is that you're really coding on the bare metal. Is there even a C compiler?

  • Wish it was upheld (Score:1, Redundant)

    by swilver ( 617741 )
    Shame, it should have been upheld. Then we might get to see how stupid such patents really are.

  • My lameness (Score:3, Funny)

    by kennygraham ( 894697 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @01:51AM (#12898154)
    1. Patent the web
    2. Improve anal hygine
    3. ???
    4. Profit!

    Time to worry about SBC's CEO?

  • SBC patent invalidated by... Micro$oft !! (Score:5, Informative)

    by indaba ( 32226 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @02:01AM (#12898180)
    sorry to ruin the party, but this SBC patent was basically invalidated by invoking the prior art of another patent , assigned to Micro$oft, applied for in 1995.

    United States Patent 5,877,765 ; Dickman , et al. March 2, 1999
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,877,765.WKU.&OS=PN/5,877,765&RS =PN/5,877,765 [uspto.gov]

    which has the catchy title Method and system for displaying internet shortcut icons on the desktop
    and yes, from a quick look, it's every bit as obvious as it sounds.

    Now, I assume Apple and Sun have taken out licences (or swapped some other IP) for the right to use this patent, but how about :

    - KDE ?
    - Gnome ?
    - you ? - yes, YOU the /.'er right there running distro "X" with icons on your desktop pointing to URL's in VLAGRANT violation of :

    2. The method of claim 1 wherein the display of the visual representation of the shortcut object on the virtual desktop includes a graphic for identifying the shortcut object as a shortcut to the resource.

    Does anyone else despair of this patent madness, where this rather obvious extension i.e icons pointing to an INTERNET resource is considered patentable, as it's such a VAST improvement (yeah right) over the basic icon to LOCAL resource ?

    eg, the Apple Mac in 1984, 1983 Lisa, even earlier Xerox Star etc etc...all had icons - right ?

    • I'm morally convinced that if he had enough money, an illiterate blind person could be granted a patent for reading.
    • perhap you missed this part :

      the display of the visual representation of the shortcut object on the virtual desktop includes a graphic for identifying the shortcut object as a shortcut to the resource.

      in other words, those funky little arrows that mean "shortcut"

      yes, they have a patent on showing -> next to a link
      now then, where did I see that sort of thing before, hmm lemme see if there's anything on my disk :

      % ls -ld home
      lrwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 9 Jan 23 13:29 home -> /usr/home

    • FLAGRANT (Score:2, Insightful)

      by drew ( 2081 )
      I'm not normally one to nitpick on spelling errors, but if you're going to YELL that loud, you could at least yell the word correctly.
      • Yep, doh ! - I *did* mean FLAGRANT :-(

        What I can't believe is that on /. this patent ownership by M$oft of frikin' icons to URL's didn't seem to register much.

        Hell, the longest thread that descended was about bash scripts... geez.

    • Method and system for displaying internet shortcut icons on the desktop
      and yes, from a quick look, it's every bit as obvious as it sounds.

      Now, I assume Apple and Sun have taken out licences (or swapped some other IP) for the right to use this patent, but how about :

      - KDE ?
      - Gnome ?
      - you ?

      Silicon Graphics and IRIX 4DWm had this a long time before the above pilfered the idea -- already with IRIX 5.2, if I remember correctly, and possibly before. That's back when Mosaic was the browser of choice.

      4DWm

  • which one... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2005 @02:22AM (#12898225)
    "Method to improve peri-anal hygiene after a bowel movement" [uspto.gov]

    In Soviet Russia, bowels move you!
    In Korea, only old people monitor peri-anal hygeine
    I, for one, welcome our new peri-anal hygenic overlords
    Yes, but can it run Linux?
    But will it be released before DNF?
    You insensitive clod, my peri-anal region is already clean!

    Nah, I'll stick with this...

    Wow, imagine a beowulf cluster of bowel movements!
  • At this rate this patent wont even be an issue when it IS rejected (for the absolute final time). The internet will be a colaborative thought process like the Borg collective so we wont be using "browsers" to read anything on it.

  • SBC browses YOU!

  • Patent Definitely Busted! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now that's a(nother) show I could enjoy seeing on Discovery; "PatentBusters."

  • What I find especially amusing about this one... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by keyslammer ( 240231 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @06:25AM (#12899047) Homepage Journal
    ... is that the patent office page linked to would itself seem to be in violation of this patent!
  • SBC and was wondering what the IP Knowledge Ventures was created for but now I guess I know.

    I think I am going to throw up - and then I will get my resume together -

    Something is wrong when we have to resort to this for making a profit. The company has bigger problems than just trying to generate revenue.

    • Re:I work for SBC Knowledge Ventures (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And no, that isn't why it was created. In fact, it didn't even exist when the deliberations on this patent started. Our prime job is to make sure that we make money off of our intellectual property, but not from stupid crap like the patent mentioned above. While we looove making money from patents which we think we deserve money off of, one of the jobs of the KV team is to make sure fiascos like this don't happen again, which means that BECAUSE Knowledge Ventures exists now, patents like these which are "o

  • New /. icon suggestion: Hell freezing over (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Khelder ( 34398 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @07:20AM (#12899315)
    In the wake of the Apple and Intel cooperation and now the USPTO actually denying/rescinding/rejecting a patent, I think it's clear that slashdot needs a new logo. Something representing hell freezing over, or perhaps pigs flying...
  • They can DO that?!

    Oooh no...
  • Our bashing of the PTO might mean a little more if once in a while some one would stand up and say, "Hooray for the PTO. They got one right."

    Only a few hundred thousand [uspto.gov] to go.
  • I completely agree with this decision, since the company didn't really create anything new, but rather used something someone else had made in a differant way. A good way of explaining this to people who don't understand the finer points of the case and lacks a basic understanding of html is in the following metaphor: -The patent system is designed to protect the rights of inventors. If someone takes steel rods from lowes and invents a new musical instrument with them, than he deserves a patent, even thoug

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember the good old days, when CPU was singular?

Close