As cited in Foss Patents, Google is trying to assert the viability of a Motorola (owned by Google Corp.) utility patent regarding a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device" despite having the argument being denied twice by an administrative law judge.
Patent Background: Broadly the patent covers the concept of the phone ignoring any physical or touchscreen senses if the phone is held "in close proximity" to the head. This helps prevent those accidental phone calls or hang ups that cause you grave trouble. In the above picture, 134 & 136 located near the top of the phone indicate Motorola's '862 patent showing the hidden IR proximity senor located near the speaker.
Google is now asserting the Commission consider the patent is of non-obvious nature and useful. The patent was originally found violated by Apple but deemed invalid due to indefiniteness. [Def: definite claim: person of ordinary skill in the art must be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, i.e. determine whether a particular device or method is covered by the claim or not.] On it's second review, the Commission reversed the indefiniteness finding but rather found the Motorola patent to lack novelty (as per its priority date).
Google now faces the challenge of proving the patent is valid and infringed even under narrower claim constructions. Or as said by the author of Foss Patents: "it has to thread the needle". Apple (the infringer) may still be fine if the patent continues to be deemed invalid or the claim is now so narrow that Apple no longer infringes.
Anticipation means the invention as a whole (all of its limitations, i.e., elements in that particular combination) was already known on the priority date.
Obviousness means that it wasn't known in its entirety but there was no inventive step involved that would justify the grant of a new patent.
Google is now asserting the Commission consider the patent is of non-obvious nature and useful. The patent was originally found violated by Apple but deemed invalid due to indefiniteness. [Def: definite claim: person of ordinary skill in the art must be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim, i.e. determine whether a particular device or method is covered by the claim or not.] On it's second review, the Commission reversed the indefiniteness finding but rather found the Motorola patent to lack novelty (as per its priority date).
Google now faces the challenge of proving the patent is valid and infringed even under narrower claim constructions. Or as said by the author of Foss Patents: "it has to thread the needle". Apple (the infringer) may still be fine if the patent continues to be deemed invalid or the claim is now so narrow that Apple no longer infringes.
Anticipation means the invention as a whole (all of its limitations, i.e., elements in that particular combination) was already known on the priority date.
Obviousness means that it wasn't known in its entirety but there was no inventive step involved that would justify the grant of a new patent.
It's interesting that Google has not given up on this patent as of yet. This shows how the selection process can be a bit subjective, especially with terms like "novelty" and "not obvious". This could result in a potential win for Google though if third time is the charm
ReplyDeleteIt is ridiculous that Google is actively pursuing a lawsuit against Apple for a Motorola owned patent that was rejected twice. The patent can clearly be misinterpreted, and seeing as it is controlled by Google as a direct result of the acquisition of Motorola, it seems preposterous for Google to continue postulating these assertions.
ReplyDelete