Huh? If I was at all offended, it was my sensibilities, by an apparent rush to judgment.
I am not a lawyer.
Fair enough. Me neither. But it is my understanding that a basic requirement for a patent is that the invention must be "non-obvious" regardless of whether or not it's been documented in the past.
Whether or not I'm qualified to judge the obviousness is a legitimate question, but from what I can see, the innovation here seems to be mostly a matter of rearranging basic shapes -- something we learn as toddlers.
As far as firmware control and battery management, it is already common practice to control the charge and discharge separately per cell, as even identically-sized cells will diverge in capacity over time and certain battery chemistries do not tolerate overcharge or over-discharge gracefully. Perhaps one could argue that creating "virtual cells" from various-size "sub-cells" is a non-obvious innovation. But to me it seems the natural answer if the goal is to create a non-orthogonal LiPO battery. I suspect device manufacturers stick to the orthogonal shapes because they are easy to manufacture, not because implementations of fancier shapes are difficult to imagine.
In my rush to judgement, I'm open to an explanation of why this invention would be considered non-obvious. It was really the hope of my first post to have someone explain why they think it is not.
In my rush to judgement, I'm open to an explanation of why this invention would be considered non-obvious. It was really the hope of my first post to have someone explain why they think it is not.
If in the opinion of the patent office that no one has submitted a similar design, then it would be obvious that it would be considered non-obvivous.
If so, i.e., Apple gets patent approval, it should be obvious to everyone that it was only obvious to Apple and not to anyone else until the likes of AI's article made it obvious.
However, based on past history, someone will challenge the obvious, which obviously Apple will counter.
Fair enough. Me neither. But it is my understanding that a basic requirement for a patent is that the invention must be "non-obvious" regardless of whether or not it's been documented in the past. Whether or not I'm qualified to judge the obviousness is a legitimate question, but from what I can see, the innovation here seems to be mostly a matter of rearranging basic shapes -- something we learn as toddlers.
Non-obviousness is assessed by the PTO in the context of a person skilled in the art, not the lay person like us.
It may be worth noting here that different technologies are often patentable (and patented) when brought together in novel combinations that might seem obvious after the fact but no one acted upon before. Legos and batteries, for instance. Or a multitouch user interface and capacitive displays.
Quote:
Perhaps one could argue that creating "virtual [batteries]" from various-size "sub-cells" is a non-obvious innovation.
yes, Apple seems to be arguing something like that in the patent application, among other claims.
Quote:
But to me it seems the natural answer if the goal is to create a non-orthogonal LiPO battery.
Who set that as a goal? (hint: Apple) How does setting that goal actually solve the problems associated with achieving the goal?
Quote:
I suspect device manufacturers stick to the orthogonal shapes because they are easy to manufacture, not because implementations of fancier shapes are difficult to imagine.
Fancy shapes are easy to imagine (like time travel) but technically difficult to manufacture? No one has done it before? Apple seems to have described a practical solution. => invention
Fair enough. Me neither. But it is my understanding that a basic requirement for a patent is that the invention must be "non-obvious" regardless of whether or not it's been documented in the past.
Whether or not I'm qualified to judge the obviousness is a legitimate question, but from what I can see, the innovation here seems to be mostly a matter of rearranging basic shapes -- something we learn as toddlers.
As far as firmware control and battery management, it is already common practice to control the charge and discharge separately per cell, as even identically-sized cells will diverge in capacity over time and certain battery chemistries do not tolerate overcharge or over-discharge gracefully. Perhaps one could argue that creating "virtual cells" from various-size "sub-cells" is a non-obvious innovation. But to me it seems the natural answer if the goal is to create a non-orthogonal LiPO battery. I suspect device manufacturers stick to the orthogonal shapes because they are easy to manufacture, not because implementations of fancier shapes are difficult to imagine.
In my rush to judgement, I'm open to an explanation of why this invention would be considered non-obvious. It was really the hope of my first post to have someone explain why they think it is not.
Reading through this quickly I tend to agree with you - it does seem to be more an innovative utilisation of an existing technology rather than a new invention per se. However, I'm sure a lot of patent applications are defensive in nature. If Apple are granted a patent for it - fine. But if not they will know it is not patentable, thus potentially saving them yet another trip up the road to that wretched court in East Texas.
Interesting. I never really caught that information.
Has anyone noticed MBP (2010), runs on battery until less than 5% a message pops up saying something like "Computer running on reserve battery". I would guess that the MBP already has more than one battery cell arrangement and also charging circuits. This new IP would make sense if more than 2 battery cells arrangement and no one has done this before.
Has anyone noticed MBP (2010), runs on battery until less than 5% a message pops up saying something like "Computer running on reserve battery". I would guess that the MBP already has more than one battery cell arrangement and also charging circuits. This new IP would make sense if more than 2 battery cells arrangement and no one has done this before.
They do but they currently have I believe 3 cells of equal size, so the warning is just being driven by the firmware, not by some special 5% sub-cell being tapped. There was an apple vid about their battery tech floating about
Not sure how that would affect how long of a charge you would get versus one single battery of the same capacity. Can see however how that might affect the overall longevity (read years of life) of the jelly roll design by intelligently conditioning by topping off and draining specific ones.
Just realized that Apple could use the new multi-jelly-roll battery design to help fill in the nooks and crannies of tapered devices. For example, the MacBook Air tapers pretty distinctly, and fitting a constant-height battery into it could be inefficient. E.g. if the battery were 1/4" think from front to back, it couldn't be pushed into the sharpest leading edge under the keyboard.
Adding multiple thinner layers, say 1/8" thick, would allow Apple to create an irregularly shaped battery in 3 dimensions. Perfect for squeezing in under and over various other components. One of the thin jelly rolls could be pushed forward, closer to the sharp leading edge of the MBA. In the thicker middle, there would be 2 layers, and toward the thickest hinge end there could be 3 layers or more.
Each jelly roll would be a constant thickness, to make it easier and cheaper to manufacture each one. Then they could be stacked as deeply or shallowly as necessary wherever there is free space.
Comments
Huh? If I was at all offended, it was my sensibilities, by an apparent rush to judgment.
I am not a lawyer.
Fair enough. Me neither. But it is my understanding that a basic requirement for a patent is that the invention must be "non-obvious" regardless of whether or not it's been documented in the past.
Whether or not I'm qualified to judge the obviousness is a legitimate question, but from what I can see, the innovation here seems to be mostly a matter of rearranging basic shapes -- something we learn as toddlers.
As far as firmware control and battery management, it is already common practice to control the charge and discharge separately per cell, as even identically-sized cells will diverge in capacity over time and certain battery chemistries do not tolerate overcharge or over-discharge gracefully. Perhaps one could argue that creating "virtual cells" from various-size "sub-cells" is a non-obvious innovation. But to me it seems the natural answer if the goal is to create a non-orthogonal LiPO battery. I suspect device manufacturers stick to the orthogonal shapes because they are easy to manufacture, not because implementations of fancier shapes are difficult to imagine.
In my rush to judgement, I'm open to an explanation of why this invention would be considered non-obvious. It was really the hope of my first post to have someone explain why they think it is not.
In my rush to judgement, I'm open to an explanation of why this invention would be considered non-obvious. It was really the hope of my first post to have someone explain why they think it is not.
If in the opinion of the patent office that no one has submitted a similar design, then it would be obvious that it would be considered non-obvivous.
If so, i.e., Apple gets patent approval, it should be obvious to everyone that it was only obvious to Apple and not to anyone else until the likes of AI's article made it obvious.
However, based on past history, someone will challenge the obvious, which obviously Apple will counter.
aka Cheney
Fair enough. Me neither. But it is my understanding that a basic requirement for a patent is that the invention must be "non-obvious" regardless of whether or not it's been documented in the past. Whether or not I'm qualified to judge the obviousness is a legitimate question, but from what I can see, the innovation here seems to be mostly a matter of rearranging basic shapes -- something we learn as toddlers.
Non-obviousness is assessed by the PTO in the context of a person skilled in the art, not the lay person like us.
It may be worth noting here that different technologies are often patentable (and patented) when brought together in novel combinations that might seem obvious after the fact but no one acted upon before. Legos and batteries, for instance. Or a multitouch user interface and capacitive displays.
Perhaps one could argue that creating "virtual [batteries]" from various-size "sub-cells" is a non-obvious innovation.
yes, Apple seems to be arguing something like that in the patent application, among other claims.
But to me it seems the natural answer if the goal is to create a non-orthogonal LiPO battery.
Who set that as a goal? (hint: Apple) How does setting that goal actually solve the problems associated with achieving the goal?
I suspect device manufacturers stick to the orthogonal shapes because they are easy to manufacture, not because implementations of fancier shapes are difficult to imagine.
Fancy shapes are easy to imagine (like time travel) but technically difficult to manufacture? No one has done it before? Apple seems to have described a practical solution. => invention
Fair enough. Me neither. But it is my understanding that a basic requirement for a patent is that the invention must be "non-obvious" regardless of whether or not it's been documented in the past.
Whether or not I'm qualified to judge the obviousness is a legitimate question, but from what I can see, the innovation here seems to be mostly a matter of rearranging basic shapes -- something we learn as toddlers.
As far as firmware control and battery management, it is already common practice to control the charge and discharge separately per cell, as even identically-sized cells will diverge in capacity over time and certain battery chemistries do not tolerate overcharge or over-discharge gracefully. Perhaps one could argue that creating "virtual cells" from various-size "sub-cells" is a non-obvious innovation. But to me it seems the natural answer if the goal is to create a non-orthogonal LiPO battery. I suspect device manufacturers stick to the orthogonal shapes because they are easy to manufacture, not because implementations of fancier shapes are difficult to imagine.
In my rush to judgement, I'm open to an explanation of why this invention would be considered non-obvious. It was really the hope of my first post to have someone explain why they think it is not.
Reading through this quickly I tend to agree with you - it does seem to be more an innovative utilisation of an existing technology rather than a new invention per se. However, I'm sure a lot of patent applications are defensive in nature. If Apple are granted a patent for it - fine. But if not they will know it is not patentable, thus potentially saving them yet another trip up the road to that wretched court in East Texas.
Interesting. I never really caught that information.
Has anyone noticed MBP (2010), runs on battery until less than 5% a message pops up saying something like "Computer running on reserve battery". I would guess that the MBP already has more than one battery cell arrangement and also charging circuits. This new IP would make sense if more than 2 battery cells arrangement and no one has done this before.
Has anyone noticed MBP (2010), runs on battery until less than 5% a message pops up saying something like "Computer running on reserve battery". I would guess that the MBP already has more than one battery cell arrangement and also charging circuits. This new IP would make sense if more than 2 battery cells arrangement and no one has done this before.
They do but they currently have I believe 3 cells of equal size, so the warning is just being driven by the firmware, not by some special 5% sub-cell being tapped. There was an apple vid about their battery tech floating about
Not sure how that would affect how long of a charge you would get versus one single battery of the same capacity. Can see however how that might affect the overall longevity (read years of life) of the jelly roll design by intelligently conditioning by topping off and draining specific ones.
Just realized that Apple could use the new multi-jelly-roll battery design to help fill in the nooks and crannies of tapered devices. For example, the MacBook Air tapers pretty distinctly, and fitting a constant-height battery into it could be inefficient. E.g. if the battery were 1/4" think from front to back, it couldn't be pushed into the sharpest leading edge under the keyboard.
Adding multiple thinner layers, say 1/8" thick, would allow Apple to create an irregularly shaped battery in 3 dimensions. Perfect for squeezing in under and over various other components. One of the thin jelly rolls could be pushed forward, closer to the sharp leading edge of the MBA. In the thicker middle, there would be 2 layers, and toward the thickest hinge end there could be 3 layers or more.
Each jelly roll would be a constant thickness, to make it easier and cheaper to manufacture each one. Then they could be stacked as deeply or shallowly as necessary wherever there is free space.
Jelly Rolls. Sweet.
Sweet indeed. And clearly an attempt by Apple to go after the law enforcement market.