post #41 of 41
The way this patent comes across to me is of a remote control (which in itself is not patentable since there is so many examples of prior art in forms both physical as well as the 'touchscreen' apps) and a processor/receiver pair. The core of the patent protects the reply from the said appliance CONTAINING the processor/receiver pair that includes a customized input method defined in a markup language, HTML/XML (which is relatively obvious so that portion cannot be enforced). Practically everything else in the patent should be unenforceable due to prior art. The problem I foresee with this patent is that Apple will have to convince hardware manufacturers to use the aforementioned 'processor/receiver pair' that sends an interface back to the remote control. With Internet access being so ubiquitous in today's home systems there is no reason the customized input method of a discovered device (which btw is and obvious property of bluetooth enabled devices) cannot be immediately downloaded and stored on a Internet enabled specialized remote or portable device (smartphone, tablet, etc.).