Originally Posted by artificialintel
Of course this is true if the original statement is taken as a blanket statement, but it's relevant that the technological ability to implement the feature had existed ever since smartphones have existed, yet no one had thought to do so.
Now that is a much better argument, though it's not the one the guy was making. It also wouldn't really be enough in this case since the patent predates smartphones the answer could just be that they feared the patent
Of course I don't really believe that, but it exemplifies the point that there are many reasons why one might choose not to implement a feature which is obvious. One might simply not thing the problem was serious enough to matter.
So, it's clear that it wasn't so obvious. Having said that, the actual patent may be obvious even if the application/embodiment clearly wasn't. I don't have anything approaching the skills to enter those legal weeds.
I can't agree that it's clear it wasn't obvious. I'll accept that it's not clear it was obvious
As you say, it's not the embodiment that matters, it's the actual claim, and whether the application to smartphones is obvious or not I maintain my contention that the patent is covered by prior art.