Everything you mention was already addressed previously. I know well enough, and have no interest in reading once again, what Apple's developers are dreaming about when designing a GUI, or what you believe that they believe when doing so.
A swipe with a finger is a swipe with a finger, with or without pictures or fairy tales. In this particular case, a groundbreaking touch interface was invented and marketed by Neonode years before Apple applied for and was unjustly granted a related patent.
Everything you mention was already addressed previously.
You never did address any of my questions.
Quote:
A swipe with a finger is a swipe with a finger, with or without pictures or fairy tales. In this particular case, a groundbreaking touch interface was invented and marketed by Neonode years before Apple applied for and was unjustly granted a related patent.
You're wrong. The proof is right there, observable in almost every smartphone today. Nobody has implemented a gestural input design like in the Neonode phones. Basically everyone is implementing a direct touch manipulation UI like the iPhone. There are some gestural inputs in today's designs, but the value is all in direct manipulation.
... If the animation/graphics is dispensable, why does everyone use it?
Because everyone is happy with the obvious addition of a guiding graphics. The original Xerox mouse had three buttons, but almost everyone uses the superior two-button setup nowadays, whoever that may have been who did it first.
Quote:
Patentable? Who knows...
The real lawyers I believe, but we are here to express our own opinions. Mine should be abundantly clear by now.
I believe you had one more, purely rhetorical question, which you answered yourself.
I understand you want to overemphasize on the conceptual differences in the two UIs, but none of that is in the text of the patent, the patent addresses specifically unlocking the device, and it's clear who had implemented it first. I never argued that the image modification wasn't Apple's or what it means within Apple's UI, but I don't see why other should be prevented from using the gesture provided that they don't prescribe the same deep semantics.
Finally, if the image is dispensable, then it isn't essential for the method to work. The answer to question 4 is thus no. The patent application has been worded so that it emphasizes on a superfluous detail and is clearly gaming the patent system. It should have been rejected based on 1. Lack of novelty and 2. Obviousness and superfluity.
Including no components--previously known or not--that are dispensable to the realization of an outcome is not a criterion for granting a patent.
This sort of reasoning would make it impossible for someone to obtain a patent on any procedure that simplifies or facilitates a pre-existing procedure. For example, we all know how to screw in light bulbs. Someone could develop a sleeve which simplified the process of getting a light bulb positioned to more easily start the process of screwing it in. By your reasoning, a patent could not be granted because the sleeve is actually dispensable to the screwing in process. How ridiculous!
This is why I've asked you to get back to the central issue of whether or not the innovation is useful, non-obvious, and novel. These are the criteria.
In this particular case, a groundbreaking touch interface was invented and marketed by Neonode years before Apple applied for and was unjustly granted a related patent.
No analogy is perfect, but here's a story that offers some parallels...
A Tale of Two Golf Resorts:
Golf Cub One:
At this golf resort, people could communicate only by swinging their golf clubs; no talking was allowed. Swinging in one directions meant "yes," and swinging in the opposite directions meant "no." Since swinging was the only mode of communication, special meanings were agreed upon for certain situations. For example, in front of the clubhouse, people could indicate that they wanted to start a game by swinging towards the green. If the clubhouse was in sight, and the swing was in that direction instead, it was to be interpreted as the client being ready to pack up and quit.
Some problems were encountered with the staff in situations where people did not swing as fully as they should or were not entirely facing the right direction or were just practicing their swing in a location close to the clubhouse. The staff, not being sure what was intended, sometimes missed their cues and did not come running to start the game or, on the other hand, complicated things by failing to ignore an unintended signal.
Golf Club Two:
This Golf Resort was and is still located just down the road from Golf Club One. They say to their clients, "We have several ways for people to communicate but we know that people like to swing their golf clubs. We want a foolproof but interesting way for you to get started. We also know that when people see a train leaving a station while tooting its horn, it means the show is on. So this is what we do..."
Basically, the clients start by swinging their golf clubs to hit a special toy train that then toots its horn as it gets going around the track. The train and its track are located conspicuosly in a pre-specified and unchanging area next to the clubhouse. Swinging the golf club into contact with the back-end of the single-car train causes it to toot as it travels up the track before quickly stalling and gliding back downhill under gravity to its starting point. And the toot is recognized as the signal. It works like a charm, and they call it "Push to Start."
People became very excited about the approach Golf Club Two was taking because it was easy, reliable, almost intuitive, and somewhat entertaining.
Many people felt that this was a great thing that Golf Club Two had done and that it was not inappropriate for them to claim it as their own innnovation. Others were of the opinion that this was nothing special, no real innovation, and that the credit should go to Golf Cub one because clients there were already swinging their golf irons in front of the clubhouse as a way of expressing their readiness to start.
Because everyone is happy with the obvious addition of a guiding graphics. The original Xerox mouse had three buttons, but almost everyone uses the superior two-button setup nowadays, whoever that may have been who did it first.
The graphics aren't guiding. They are the mechanism by which an iOS device is unlocked. That's not obvious and it's not trivial. It's not a left-to-right swipe gesture. It's a movement of the slider from the lock position to the unlock position. Like I said before, you can move the slider back and forth any way you want, repeated swipes, but it doesn't unlock. The swiping isn't causing the unlock. It's the process of moving the slider to the unlock position that does it.
If people are happier with such an unlock and it was obvious, why didn't it appear on Treos? Windows Mobile phones? And any of the other myriad of handheld touch devices. They had 15 years to implement a method that is being used a lot today.
On mouse pointing devices: the dominant mouse design has a scroll-wheel and is patented by Microsoft. Worthy of a patent? (Never mind that there are trackballs, trackpads and IBM nipples.) Also, Apple sells a mouse with no buttons. It has a single click mechanism that uses touch input. And they sell multi-point trackpad. I think the Apple Magic Mouse is better than the scroll wheel and 2 button setup. They refused to use a scroll-wheel and iterated a few times to come up with something better, and I think they did with the Magic Mouse.
On happiness: you say it as such a trivial thing. But happiness is the most significant thing about inventions. Because yhey do things better and they make people happier. That's the point of every invention.
Quote:
The real lawyers I believe, but we are here to express our own opinions. Mine should be abundantly clear by now.
Not lawyers. Judges. Yeah, and obviously I'm trying to talk you down from it.
Quote:
I understand you want to overemphasize on the conceptual differences in the two UIs, but none of that is in the text of the patent, the patent addresses specifically unlocking the device, and it's clear who had implemented it first. I never argued that the image modification wasn't Apple's or what it means within Apple's UI, but I don't see why other should be prevented from using the gesture provided that they don't prescribe the same deep semantics.
And you want to underemphasize the differences. Here is claim 1 of the patent:
Code:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Where does it say anything about accepting a swipe input like in the Neonode? No where. The granted patent is entirely about moving a graphical image from a lock location to an unlock location. That's it.
Including no components--previously known or not--that are dispensable to the realization of an outcome is not a criterion for granting a patent.
This sort of reasoning would make it impossible for someone to obtain a patent on any procedure that simplifies or facilitates a pre-existing procedure. For example, we all know how to screw in light bulbs. Someone could develop a sleeve which simplified the process of getting a light bulb positioned to more easily start the process of screwing it in. By your reasoning, a patent could not be granted because the sleeve is actually dispensable to the screwing in process. How ridiculous!
This is why I've asked you to get back to the central issue of whether or not the innovation is useful, non-obvious, and novel. These are the criteria.
The image does not simplify the process nor does it make more efficient, so the lightbulb and sleeve analogy is moot.
The innovation is marginally useful, obvious, and arguably novel (just about any GUI element relies on movable images).
You guys are taking turns in coming up with verbose arguments and I frankly am losing my interest, sorry. I'll hardly be able to come up with any arguments that will suddenly convince anyone here anyway...
The image does not simplify the process nor does it make more efficient, so the lightbulb and sleeve analogy is moot.
The innovation is marginally useful, obvious, and arguably novel (just about any GUI element relies on movable images).
You're wrong.
Judging from my iPad experience, the image and its apparent manipulation enhance the gesture in several ways (whether or not that includes simplification, which is not a requirement in any case), and this underscores the fact that, for patentability, a proposed innovation is considered as a whole rather in terms of each of its individual components:
1) It precisely defines where the finger movement must take place, minimizing the likelihood of errors related to positioning.
2) It statically specifies where the finger movement must begin and where it must end in two dimensions, further reducing the possibility of inadvertent triggering or misinterpretation of signals.
3) It dynamically illustrates the required movement before the action is initiated and then shows a ready signal when the finger is placed in the correct position for starting the action (and not otherwise).
4) It suggests that your finger must touch the surface of the screen, adding a level of required specificity in the third dimension (i.e., height above the screen).
5) It provides the illusion of moving an object (i.e., sliding it) in a way that adds meaning to the gesture that is relevant and feels natural at a conceptual level.
6) It allows for both visual and audio feedback upon satisfactory completion of the gesture.
7) It allows the user to change his/her mind about unlocking and instead abort the procedure at any point during the gesture prior to lifting the finger from the image at the end of the motion.
There's probably more, but I think that's clear enough. The addition of the image and appropriate animation related to the required movements enhance and improve the entire experience of using a gesture to unlock.
Here's another example (again, just supposing):
Someone develops a drinking straw that allows better performance in getting the last bit of fluid out of a glass. The innovation involves a mechanism whereby the straw senses the level of fluid, and its diameter is reduced dynamically when the remaining fluid in the glass is lower than a certain level. Prior to this development there were no straws in operation that incorporated dynamic adjustment. Is the inventor entitled to receive a patent?
Does this innovation meet the criteria of being non-obvious, novel, and useful? This is what matters.
...NOT that straws have been in use almost forever.
...NOT that most people wouldn't buy it.
...NOT that the straw can perform its function even when the new mechanism fails.
...NOT that only a few people are interested in draining their glasses of the last dregs.
...NOT that the innovation is, therefore, only marginally useful.
...NOT that the new mechanism is not necessary for the straw to operate.
...NOT that this component is not indispensable to the basic funtionality of a straw.
...NOT that the addition of such a mechanism might have been obvious.
...NOT that the mechanism is used elsewhere and is therefore obvious.
Bear in mind that the significant criteria must be applied to the entire package rather than its components. So claiming that a component, e.g., a graphical image, is obvious by itself has absolutely no bearing. Similarly, claiming that the image by itself does not improve or enhance the process in some way is irrelevant. It's the totality that must be examined!
1. The Neonode N1 is referenced directly in the newly issued patent, so the USPTO has already looked at the prior art in the case of the Neonode N1 and determined that the patent claims were non obvious.
2. If you were handed an iPhone and an N1, having never used or seen one before, could you operate the device intuitively?
To answer a previous posters questions:
1. Does Apple's slide-to-unlock work when the back light is dimmed, or when the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?
Only if you have been trained to operate it.
2. Can one unlock the iPhone without looking at it?
Only if you have been trained to operate it.
3. Would Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there?
No, you would have nothing to slide.
4. Is Apple's addition of an animated image, which is central to their patent, essential for the gesture to work as it does currently?
Yes, you need to slide the image to unlock it. If you were not trained on how to operate the phone you would not know how to unlock it if the image did not exist. Even with training if you did not have an image it would be clunky to operate it.
There is a reason that the Taiwan government is scared of this patent and what it will do to the industry that has been created by copying the iPhone.
Apple claims to have applied for over 200 patents related to the iPhone. This is just one of them.
Comments
tl;dr.
Everything you mention was already addressed previously. I know well enough, and have no interest in reading once again, what Apple's developers are dreaming about when designing a GUI, or what you believe that they believe when doing so.
A swipe with a finger is a swipe with a finger, with or without pictures or fairy tales. In this particular case, a groundbreaking touch interface was invented and marketed by Neonode years before Apple applied for and was unjustly granted a related patent.
Everything you mention was already addressed previously.
You never did address any of my questions.
A swipe with a finger is a swipe with a finger, with or without pictures or fairy tales. In this particular case, a groundbreaking touch interface was invented and marketed by Neonode years before Apple applied for and was unjustly granted a related patent.
You're wrong. The proof is right there, observable in almost every smartphone today. Nobody has implemented a gestural input design like in the Neonode phones. Basically everyone is implementing a direct touch manipulation UI like the iPhone. There are some gestural inputs in today's designs, but the value is all in direct manipulation.
...
... If the animation/graphics is dispensable, why does everyone use it?
Because everyone is happy with the obvious addition of a guiding graphics. The original Xerox mouse had three buttons, but almost everyone uses the superior two-button setup nowadays, whoever that may have been who did it first.
Patentable? Who knows...
The real lawyers I believe, but we are here to express our own opinions. Mine should be abundantly clear by now.
I believe you had one more, purely rhetorical question, which you answered yourself.
I understand you want to overemphasize on the conceptual differences in the two UIs, but none of that is in the text of the patent, the patent addresses specifically unlocking the device, and it's clear who had implemented it first. I never argued that the image modification wasn't Apple's or what it means within Apple's UI, but I don't see why other should be prevented from using the gesture provided that they don't prescribe the same deep semantics.
Finally, if the image is dispensable, then it isn't essential for the method to work. The answer to question 4 is thus no. The patent application has been worded so that it emphasizes on a superfluous detail and is clearly gaming the patent system. It should have been rejected based on 1. Lack of novelty and 2. Obviousness and superfluity.
Including no components--previously known or not--that are dispensable to the realization of an outcome is not a criterion for granting a patent.
This sort of reasoning would make it impossible for someone to obtain a patent on any procedure that simplifies or facilitates a pre-existing procedure. For example, we all know how to screw in light bulbs. Someone could develop a sleeve which simplified the process of getting a light bulb positioned to more easily start the process of screwing it in. By your reasoning, a patent could not be granted because the sleeve is actually dispensable to the screwing in process. How ridiculous!
This is why I've asked you to get back to the central issue of whether or not the innovation is useful, non-obvious, and novel. These are the criteria.
A swipe with a finger is a swipe with a finger, with or without pictures or fairy tales.
Exactly, which is why Apple is not attempting to patent "a swipe with a finger."
As a reminder, this is the title of the patent application:
"Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image."
You can't just remove the parts that are not convenient to your argument!
In this particular case, a groundbreaking touch interface was invented and marketed by Neonode years before Apple applied for and was unjustly granted a related patent.
No analogy is perfect, but here's a story that offers some parallels...
A Tale of Two Golf Resorts:
Golf Cub One:
At this golf resort, people could communicate only by swinging their golf clubs; no talking was allowed. Swinging in one directions meant "yes," and swinging in the opposite directions meant "no." Since swinging was the only mode of communication, special meanings were agreed upon for certain situations. For example, in front of the clubhouse, people could indicate that they wanted to start a game by swinging towards the green. If the clubhouse was in sight, and the swing was in that direction instead, it was to be interpreted as the client being ready to pack up and quit.
Some problems were encountered with the staff in situations where people did not swing as fully as they should or were not entirely facing the right direction or were just practicing their swing in a location close to the clubhouse. The staff, not being sure what was intended, sometimes missed their cues and did not come running to start the game or, on the other hand, complicated things by failing to ignore an unintended signal.
Golf Club Two:
This Golf Resort was and is still located just down the road from Golf Club One. They say to their clients, "We have several ways for people to communicate but we know that people like to swing their golf clubs. We want a foolproof but interesting way for you to get started. We also know that when people see a train leaving a station while tooting its horn, it means the show is on. So this is what we do..."
Basically, the clients start by swinging their golf clubs to hit a special toy train that then toots its horn as it gets going around the track. The train and its track are located conspicuosly in a pre-specified and unchanging area next to the clubhouse. Swinging the golf club into contact with the back-end of the single-car train causes it to toot as it travels up the track before quickly stalling and gliding back downhill under gravity to its starting point. And the toot is recognized as the signal. It works like a charm, and they call it "Push to Start."
People became very excited about the approach Golf Club Two was taking because it was easy, reliable, almost intuitive, and somewhat entertaining.
Many people felt that this was a great thing that Golf Club Two had done and that it was not inappropriate for them to claim it as their own innnovation. Others were of the opinion that this was nothing special, no real innovation, and that the credit should go to Golf Cub one because clients there were already swinging their golf irons in front of the clubhouse as a way of expressing their readiness to start.
What do you think?
You basically agreed with me. My fourth question was:
You said "no". I think so too.
Did you really read my answer? I said 1,3,4 are qualitatively no. Your answer is 1,2,3 yes, 4, no. This is quite different from mine.
Because everyone is happy with the obvious addition of a guiding graphics. The original Xerox mouse had three buttons, but almost everyone uses the superior two-button setup nowadays, whoever that may have been who did it first.
The graphics aren't guiding. They are the mechanism by which an iOS device is unlocked. That's not obvious and it's not trivial. It's not a left-to-right swipe gesture. It's a movement of the slider from the lock position to the unlock position. Like I said before, you can move the slider back and forth any way you want, repeated swipes, but it doesn't unlock. The swiping isn't causing the unlock. It's the process of moving the slider to the unlock position that does it.
If people are happier with such an unlock and it was obvious, why didn't it appear on Treos? Windows Mobile phones? And any of the other myriad of handheld touch devices. They had 15 years to implement a method that is being used a lot today.
On mouse pointing devices: the dominant mouse design has a scroll-wheel and is patented by Microsoft. Worthy of a patent? (Never mind that there are trackballs, trackpads and IBM nipples.) Also, Apple sells a mouse with no buttons. It has a single click mechanism that uses touch input. And they sell multi-point trackpad. I think the Apple Magic Mouse is better than the scroll wheel and 2 button setup. They refused to use a scroll-wheel and iterated a few times to come up with something better, and I think they did with the Magic Mouse.
On happiness: you say it as such a trivial thing. But happiness is the most significant thing about inventions. Because yhey do things better and they make people happier. That's the point of every invention.
The real lawyers I believe, but we are here to express our own opinions. Mine should be abundantly clear by now.
Not lawyers. Judges. Yeah, and obviously I'm trying to talk you down from it.
I understand you want to overemphasize on the conceptual differences in the two UIs, but none of that is in the text of the patent, the patent addresses specifically unlocking the device, and it's clear who had implemented it first. I never argued that the image modification wasn't Apple's or what it means within Apple's UI, but I don't see why other should be prevented from using the gesture provided that they don't prescribe the same deep semantics.
And you want to underemphasize the differences. Here is claim 1 of the patent:
1. A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
Where does it say anything about accepting a swipe input like in the Neonode? No where. The granted patent is entirely about moving a graphical image from a lock location to an unlock location. That's it.
Including no components--previously known or not--that are dispensable to the realization of an outcome is not a criterion for granting a patent.
This sort of reasoning would make it impossible for someone to obtain a patent on any procedure that simplifies or facilitates a pre-existing procedure. For example, we all know how to screw in light bulbs. Someone could develop a sleeve which simplified the process of getting a light bulb positioned to more easily start the process of screwing it in. By your reasoning, a patent could not be granted because the sleeve is actually dispensable to the screwing in process. How ridiculous!
This is why I've asked you to get back to the central issue of whether or not the innovation is useful, non-obvious, and novel. These are the criteria.
The image does not simplify the process nor does it make more efficient, so the lightbulb and sleeve analogy is moot.
The innovation is marginally useful, obvious, and arguably novel (just about any GUI element relies on movable images).
You guys are taking turns in coming up with verbose arguments and I frankly am losing my interest, sorry. I'll hardly be able to come up with any arguments that will suddenly convince anyone here anyway...
The image does not simplify the process nor does it make more efficient, so the lightbulb and sleeve analogy is moot.
The innovation is marginally useful, obvious, and arguably novel (just about any GUI element relies on movable images).
You're wrong.
Judging from my iPad experience, the image and its apparent manipulation enhance the gesture in several ways (whether or not that includes simplification, which is not a requirement in any case), and this underscores the fact that, for patentability, a proposed innovation is considered as a whole rather in terms of each of its individual components:
1) It precisely defines where the finger movement must take place, minimizing the likelihood of errors related to positioning.
2) It statically specifies where the finger movement must begin and where it must end in two dimensions, further reducing the possibility of inadvertent triggering or misinterpretation of signals.
3) It dynamically illustrates the required movement before the action is initiated and then shows a ready signal when the finger is placed in the correct position for starting the action (and not otherwise).
4) It suggests that your finger must touch the surface of the screen, adding a level of required specificity in the third dimension (i.e., height above the screen).
5) It provides the illusion of moving an object (i.e., sliding it) in a way that adds meaning to the gesture that is relevant and feels natural at a conceptual level.
6) It allows for both visual and audio feedback upon satisfactory completion of the gesture.
7) It allows the user to change his/her mind about unlocking and instead abort the procedure at any point during the gesture prior to lifting the finger from the image at the end of the motion.
There's probably more, but I think that's clear enough. The addition of the image and appropriate animation related to the required movements enhance and improve the entire experience of using a gesture to unlock.
Here's another example (again, just supposing):
Someone develops a drinking straw that allows better performance in getting the last bit of fluid out of a glass. The innovation involves a mechanism whereby the straw senses the level of fluid, and its diameter is reduced dynamically when the remaining fluid in the glass is lower than a certain level. Prior to this development there were no straws in operation that incorporated dynamic adjustment. Is the inventor entitled to receive a patent?
Does this innovation meet the criteria of being non-obvious, novel, and useful? This is what matters.
...NOT that straws have been in use almost forever.
...NOT that most people wouldn't buy it.
...NOT that the straw can perform its function even when the new mechanism fails.
...NOT that only a few people are interested in draining their glasses of the last dregs.
...NOT that the innovation is, therefore, only marginally useful.
...NOT that the new mechanism is not necessary for the straw to operate.
...NOT that this component is not indispensable to the basic funtionality of a straw.
...NOT that the addition of such a mechanism might have been obvious.
...NOT that the mechanism is used elsewhere and is therefore obvious.
Bear in mind that the significant criteria must be applied to the entire package rather than its components. So claiming that a component, e.g., a graphical image, is obvious by itself has absolutely no bearing. Similarly, claiming that the image by itself does not improve or enhance the process in some way is irrelevant. It's the totality that must be examined!
2. If you were handed an iPhone and an N1, having never used or seen one before, could you operate the device intuitively?
To answer a previous posters questions:
1. Does Apple's slide-to-unlock work when the back light is dimmed, or when the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?
Only if you have been trained to operate it.
2. Can one unlock the iPhone without looking at it?
Only if you have been trained to operate it.
3. Would Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there?
No, you would have nothing to slide.
4. Is Apple's addition of an animated image, which is central to their patent, essential for the gesture to work as it does currently?
Yes, you need to slide the image to unlock it. If you were not trained on how to operate the phone you would not know how to unlock it if the image did not exist. Even with training if you did not have an image it would be clunky to operate it.
There is a reason that the Taiwan government is scared of this patent and what it will do to the industry that has been created by copying the iPhone.
Apple claims to have applied for over 200 patents related to the iPhone. This is just one of them.