backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 27 comment(s) - last by kenji4life.. on May 30 at 3:13 AM

Artwork from Patent Application  (Source: News.com)
Patent application is reported to have been filed by Apple employees

Apple is no stranger to product leaks and patent applications turning up online and creating a storm of rumors -- often followed by denials from Apple that the leaks are real.

MacRumors reports that patent application 20080094025 turned up and was filed by Apple employees – it covers a method of integrating solar cells behind the LCD of mobile devices. By integrating the solar panels behind the LCD there would be no external clue that a device could be powered by solar energy.

The application outlines a method where solar cells could be placed under the LCD on a portable device and absorb light that passes through the devices glass and LCD layer to create power. The patent also describes a way to connect solar cells to different internal components of the device like the memory or data processing system. The application also says that the device would be able to display the amount of solar power available as well as power remaining inside the devices internal batteries.

DailyTech covered an Apple patent application in October of 2007 for a touch screen device with tactile feedback. In this instance Apple was listed as an assignee on the application for the patent. With this new patent application for solar cells Apple isn’t listed as a designee, rather names of people that are Apple employees according to MacRumors are listed.

The Application itself goes on to list some nebulous insinuations that the technology would be used in Apple products like “digital music players with extremely small form factors, such as iPod.RTM. and iPod Nano.RTM. of Apple Computer, Inc. based in Cupertino, Calif., have become very popular” and “The computer system of FIG. 5 may, for example, be a portable computer system (e.g., a laptop) from Apple Computer. Inc.”

The application alludes to the fact that Apple will be the beneficiary of the technology but also lists several other potential product types for the technology like portable DVD players. Perhaps Apple is simply trying to throw patent application trolls off by not listing itself on the application. Artwork from the application shown on News.com doesn’t show an Apple logo on the pictured devices either.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Mostly generic claims.
By dajeepster on 5/27/2008 2:14:15 PM , Rating: 5
the only independent clain that claims thier invention are claims 34.

claim 1-method for arranging and connecting a plurality of solar cells on a portable device
TOO GENERIC

claim 6 -portable data processing system
Solar powered calculator

claim 12 -portable data processing device, comprising:a frame;a processor coupled to the frame;a solar cell layer coupled to the processor; anda shock-absorbing material coupling the solar cell layer to the frame, the solar cell to provide power to the processor.
again, a solar powered calculator

claim 23 -A method for displaying instantaneous power output from a solar cell on a portable data processing device, the solar cell having a maximum power output, wherein the solar cell is attached to a first side of the data processing device, the method comprising:measuring an instantaneous power output from the solar cell;computing a ratio between the measured instantaneous power output and the maximum power output; anddisplaying the ratio on the first side of the device, wherein a second side of the data processing device comprises a display and a user input device.
wow... if you have a display... you have maximum power output... who would have thunk that?

claim 25 -A portable data processing device, comprising:a processor coupled to a memory;a solar cell, the solar cell having a maximum power output, the solar cell disposed on a surface of the data processing device; anda display to display an instantaneous power output, the display being disposed on the surface.
again, a solar powered calculator... with a... wait for it ... wait for it... a display :o

claim 34 - A method for displaying a cumulative power output from a solar cell, the method comprising:measuring a power output from a solar cell;recording cumulatively said power output for a substantial period of time;converting the recorded power output for said substantial period of time into an environmentally friendly value;generating an environmentally friendly message using the environmentally friendly value; anddisplaying the environmentally friendly message.
ok... wtf is an environmentally friendly value, or an environmentally friendly message???... i guess it won't be saying... "hey dumb@ss... you're in the shade"

just remember everyone... what thier invention is and what they actually claim aren't necessarily the same thing. I guess that's why I got so fustrated with working at the USPTO, claims being so broad and generic, that they claim just about anything and every under the sun.




RE: Mostly generic claims.
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/27/2008 4:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
That last statement of yours makes me think about patents that leave an open door for sueing future inventions which, somehow, have features which can be (directly or not) related to the patent. :D


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By kenji4life on 5/30/2008 3:13:04 AM , Rating: 3
Apple? Sue? No way.. you should be ashamed for even suggesting that Apple might sue anyone.

google: apple sues

.. If you want some reading material for the next few weeks.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By PandaBear on 5/27/2008 4:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so how are you going to have a back light and a solar cell behind the LCD? You either have not enough lights or the solar cell will not work well.

Unless you have a transparent back light invented, this device is useless. Everyone else have though of it and scrapped the idea.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By Trisped on 5/27/2008 5:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
I could see the use, mainly as a way to recharge the unit when the screen is off.

Then LCD screens are only going to filter certain wavelengths, so if you put it in direct sun light, you would probably get a pretty good amount of energy.

Of course, correct me if I am wrong.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By dajeepster on 5/28/2008 12:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
the sad thing is.. everyone else may have thought if it and scrapped the idea.. but if no one filed a patent application, someone eventually will file.

And the technology will continually advance where someday, the problems you have mentioned will be overcome.... hopefully ... and I want to be around to see that happen so that I can kick myself for not doing it first


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By Trisped on 5/27/2008 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, you can get a patent on this?
I thought patents had to be revolutionary, not evolutionary.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By dajeepster on 5/28/2008 12:59:53 AM , Rating: 2
nope... they just have to be novel


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By dajeepster on 5/27/2008 10:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
my last statement about the environmentally friendly value/message should have been about claim 28... NOT claim 34... my bad


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By soxfan on 5/27/2008 11:59:18 PM , Rating: 3
"just remember everyone... what thier invention is and what they actually claim aren't necessarily the same thing. I guess that's why I got so fustrated with working at the USPTO, claims being so broad and generic, that they claim just about anything and every under the sun."

I'm a former patent examiner and am now a patent attorney. The reason patent applications contain very broad claims, at least at first, is due to the law of Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Moreover, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with trying to claim an invention broadly. If a USPTO examiner does their job, then the claims will be narrowed appropriately based on the application of valid prior art. There are few other reasons why an applicant should, or should want to, narrow the scope of initially filed claims.

And why would the fact that applicants claim broadly bother you as USPTO examiner? All it does is make your job easier. After all, broader claims should be easier to reject. Heck, you validly rejected a bunch of the claims of this published patent application in the time it took you to draft one post. Chalk up a count for a job well done.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By dajeepster on 5/28/2008 12:37:08 AM , Rating: 2
thanks for sharing... I was a former patent examiner also, but then I realized that I wanted my electrical engineering degree to mean something more to me, rather than just a job. a majority of electrical engineer at the patent office how have been there for a period of time are no longer engineers... they're examiners.

and yes... broader claims are easier to reject... I would have chalked up several counts on this one.. because they would have spent(wasted) a lot of money rewriting and refiling (hoping that they get an easy examiner)resubmitting.... and resubmitting.. and it's all a vicious cycle ... bleh.. no thanks


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By homebredcorgi on 5/28/2008 1:38:40 AM , Rating: 2
Therein lies the problem. The burden is on the examiner to do his job correctly and not on the person applying to make accurate claims. What's the penalty for me applying for a bogus patent knowing full well that it is garbage (assuming it isn't directly infringing on another companies IP)?

I can't say I blame anyone for writing overly broad patents, but don't act like "if the examiner would just do their job" there would be no problem. If there were some accountability on your end for writing shit patents you would be singing a different tune.

Leave it to a lawyer to point out that legally right and ethically right are two different things.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By soxfan on 5/28/2008 7:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you totally took what I said the wrong way. Probably because it is difficult to impart connotation to a post I wrote in about two minutes right before I went to bed.

My point was, and is, that broad patent claims are easier to reject. I know, because I was an examiner for over 3 years. Dajeepster, another former examiner, agrees with me. Moreover, all I said was that if an examiner does their job (which they are paid by patent applicants to do, not the U.S. taxpayer), the claims will be eventually be appropriately narrowed based on prior art. As for the cost to the applicant, what do you care? The applicant is absorbing that cost, and voluntarily I might add. Moreover, because the USPTO is one of the only, if not the only self sufficient government offices, patent prosecution costs virtually nothing to the U.S. taxpayer.

That said, I can only imagine that your concenr about overly broad patents is that they might prevent "the little guy" from entering the market, or they might result in a lawsuit etc. In a way. I agree with you that patents having overly broad claims can result in a "waste" of resources (if you can call determining who has rightful ownership over particular property a waste). However, that waste of resources generally only occurs if a patent (not an application) is enforced.

Now here is a fact you may not have known. Of the millions of patents that have issued, less than 3% have been enforced, with less than 1% of them resulting in a full on lawsuit. In other words, if 1 million U.S. patents are in force today (that number may or may not be even remotely accurate), it is highly probable that less than 10,000 of them will ever be enforced in court during their 20 year term. That means less than 500 patent lawsuits will be filed a year, based on 1 million patents!

Yes, 500 lawsuits is a lot. Maybe too many. But as you can probably imagine, patent suits, simply by virtue of their relative infrequency, are not nearly as big a draw of the court and litigant resources as say, for example, tort, insurance, criminal, or other types of civil litigation.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By soxfan on 5/28/2008 7:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and as for accountability, you have got to be kidding me. There are innumerable sources of potential liability in patent law, only one of which is pursuing claims that are known to be unpatentable. My firm doesn't carry 100-200 million dollars worth of liability and malpractice insurance for nothing.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By soxfan on 5/28/2008 12:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
"ok... wtf is an environmentally friendly value, or an environmentally friendly message???... i guess it won't be saying... "hey dumb@ss... you're in the shade"

Claim construction 101: while examiners generally give the scope of the claims their broadest reasonable meaning, that meaning must be consistent with the specification. Moreover, the Phillips case clearly indicated that the specification is one of the strongest sources of information with respect to claim interpretation.

That said, paragraph [0075] states, inter alia, "[t]hen, the energy value is converted to one or more "environmentally friendly values" at block 914. As illustrated earlier, the environmentally friendly values include the number of AA batteries or the amount of carbon dioxide gas, or any values meaningful to the end users. Then, the environmentally friendly message is generated based on these "user-friendly values" and it is displayed in a user interface 914."

Thus, it appears that an environmentally freidnly value is anythign meaningful to an end user, e.g., power use, CO2 emitted, etc.


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By dajeepster on 5/28/2008 12:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As illustrated earlier, the environmentally friendly values include the number of AA batteries or the amount of carbon dioxide gas, or any values meaningful to the end users. Then, the environmentally friendly message is generated based on these "user-friendly values" and it is displayed in a user interface 914.


by his definition of "environmentally friendly message"... that would mean anything that is displayed on the display of a calculator... after all... when I type something on my solar powered calculator, it has displayed "any values meaningful to the end users"... otherwise... why would I look at the display... because it has something of value to me that I wanted it to calculate...
again.. the claim language itself is vague and indefinate becauses it doesn't explicitly state what is being claimed... and don't give me that "applicant can be his/her own lexicographer"... they're just abusing the language
...
...
p.s. not that I don't butcher it enough as it is


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By soxfan on 5/28/2008 8:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
Well said. But as you mentioned, Applicants are entitled to be their own lexicographer, and for good reason. in this particular case, and as you correclty pointed out, the applicant (or attorney) who drafted the application simply chose to define the term "encironmentally friendly meassage" in a way that can legitiamtely be construed to mean literally any message that has meaning.

But symantics aside, I generally agree with you that the English language should not be contorted by applicants to result in terms having decidedly strange and unnatural definitions. There is a time and a place for defining terms and properties in applications (nanotechnology is a great example). In this particular application, it seems silly to use the phrase "environmentally freidnly value," when upon close inspection of the specification, the term literally has the same definition as "a value."


RE: Mostly generic claims.
By MrPoletski on 5/28/2008 9:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
That's patents for ya. They will try and get everything they can - but not neccesarily enforce it.


Interesting
By DeepBlue1975 on 5/27/2008 1:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Though I don't know how much of a benefit could mean to most of the people, specially if we're talking about a high extra cost to have this.

I carry my cell phone in my shirt's pocket, most of the time I use it with the screen facing upwards is while I'm indoors (weak light), and while I'm outdoors I usually hold the screen at an almost perpendicular angle (in respect to the ground's plane) to avoid glare and use it for very short times in those conditions.

But anyway I'd like to see prototypes of this and see what kind of improvement it makes on battery life, in average usage situations... And of course, what the added cost of having such a thing could be.




RE: Interesting
By mmntech on 5/27/2008 2:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
It might be just a proof of concept. However, there's a lot of solar powered cell phone battery chargers coming out now. It's not exactly practical for a phone as you said but integrating it into laptops to improve battery life could be useful. The big problem with solar cells is that they're inefficient. I have a solar panel in my car that only puts out about 3w yet it's about a foot in diameter. You could use them to keep the battery topped up but not really as a secondary power source to run the system.