The semantics are irrelevant. Whether the gesture resembles "an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism" or not is completely immaterial, and in fact, it doesn't resemble anything widely used (what do you open by sliding your thumb across it, really?). The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it. You shouldn't be able to patent something old just because you see some deep new meaning in it.
What you're trying to convince me is roughly this: Neonode designed a mouse trap, but they didn't understand it can trap mice (?!), so Apple should be granted a patent for finding a similarity between Neonode's invention and another device that traps mice, and drawing on Neonode's device to emphasize that resemblance.
Can you answer this: would Apple's slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there? Could one unlock iPhone's screen without looking at it? Does the unlock work if the back light is dimmed, or the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?
If you answered the above questions with "yes", then you know whether Apple's addition to the method is dispensable.
Neonode's idea is very generic. Swiping is natural on a touch screen. But Apple's slide to unlock patent is very advance.
This is like a piece of cloth. Put the cloth on your body is generic and natural to do. However, a taylor can cut the cloth to make different designs. And they can be patented if nobody have designed it before.
Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.
The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)
Correct. It's easy to get sidetracked by hypotheticals. I'm more interested in looking at the central issue.
You are avoiding the central issue. Those are really simple questions. However you prefer keeping your head in the sand, because you maybe begin to realize that the answer would mean that you've been wrong all along.
Here are the questions that scare you so much, once again for clarity:
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?
2. Can one unlock the iPhone without looking at it?
3. Would Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there?
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?
I'm trying to understand if you guys who are defending this patent are doing so based on existing terminology/law or on principal.
You do know this is the Internet, right? Nobody on either side knows patent terminology nor patent law.
Quote:
Props to apple for being the first to implement this idea to the mass market in a pretty package but in no way should this be considered unique after seeing that neonode video. whatever excuse you come up with such as "real world action??" is a fabrication to divert attention away from the concept. how much simpler can it get? 1. screen is locked 2. wake device 3. swipe finger from one side to the other and screen is unlocked. yes or no doesn't matter at this point. the concept is right there for a company to manipulate and claim as their own
I can think of many ways to unlock a touchscreen device: enter a pin, tap on a specific button, tap on a specific button multiple times, tap on a series of buttons, enter a block character, tap-and-hold on a specific area or button, etc. I can probably keep on going after more thought.
But let me ask you about the novelty between the Neonode N1m swipe-to-unlock gesture and Apple's iOS swipe-to-unlock method. Do any devices implement Neonode's N1m swipe-to-unlock idea? Do any devices implement the iOS swipe-to-lock idea?
As far as I know, no phone implements the N1m's swipe-to-unlock gesture. I do believe there are many implementations of Apple's swipe-to-unlock idea. I think this basically states that Apple's idea of using direct manipulation on an onscreen graphical element is the big innovation, idea, invention, whatever you want to call it, not the gesture in of itself.
Is it worth patenting? Well, the question isn't going to be solved. But I think people are giving Apple's swipe-to-unlock the short shrift here. If Neonode's idea was so important, why don't people use it? Every implementation basically uses a direct manipulation of an onscreen graphical element.
Google actually came up with alternative: the pattern unlock, but for some reason, many Android phones don't use it as default. Why?
The addition of the graphics is obvious. Neonode had a tiny low-res screen, which would make drawing animation problematic. Plus, it's not needed at all for the gesture to work.
Quote:
Is it worth patenting?
It isn't. It's an obvious and nonessential addition.
Quote:
Google actually came up with alternative: the pattern unlock, but for some reason, many Android phones don't use it as default. Why?
It's called "giving your customers a choice". It's not necessarily a good thing.
You are avoiding the central issue. Those are really simple questions. However you prefer keeping your head in the sand, because you maybe begin to realize that the answer would mean that you've been wrong all along.
Here are the questions that scare you so much, once again for clarity:
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?
2. Can one unlock the iPhone without looking at it?
3. Would Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there?
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?
He probably does not have an iPhone. I can answer these questions for him.
The answers to 1,3,4 are qualitatively no. So, what is your point?
The only way to prove that my questions do not enlighten the issue is to answer them. Then we would see.
On the other hand, the only way to prove that your questions do enlighten the issue is to first answer them.
But surely you don't need me to enlighten you by answering your "really simple" questions--ones so simple that you will no doubt have already discovered the answers on your own? All that remains is for you to make your point. So, be my guest. Explain how these simple questions enlighten the central issue.
(Meanwhile, someone else seems to have correctly deduced that I don't have an iPhone...)
Uh, you're crazy, right? 1 and 2 are outright yeses. Three's a no. Four is contingent on his definition of 'animated image', which I believe (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) pertains to the lock icon and its motion in conjunction with one's finger.
Uh, you're crazy, right? 1 and 2 are outright yeses. Three's a no. Four is contingent on his definition of 'animated image', which I believe (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) pertains to the lock icon and its motion in conjunction with one's finger.
And if that's the case, four is a maybe.
1,3, 4 are qualitatively no because if your finger did not touch the right area and move in the right direction as described in the patent the device won't open.
(Meanwhile, someone else seems to have correctly deduced that I don't have an iPhone...)
What does this have to do with understanding basic facts about physical reality? Thanks for playing anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Uh, you're crazy, right? 1 and 2 are outright yeses. Three's a no. Four is contingent on his definition of 'animated image', which I believe (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) pertains to the lock icon and its motion in conjunction with one's finger.
And if that's the case, four is a maybe.
Thanks for your sane reply. So, 1 and 2 are "yes", so far so good. Now, if you can unlock an iPhone by slide-to-unlock without looking at it (2. yes), then you are not making any use of the on-screen image, which means that it may just as well not be there. Therefore the slide-to-unlock, as implemented by Apple, doesn't really need the image, and 3 is also a "yes".
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.
The addition of the graphics is obvious. Neonode had a tiny low-res screen, which would make drawing animation problematic. Plus, it's not needed at all for the gesture to work.
The N1m had a 176x220 pixel resolution display. That's plenty. That's more than the original Treo 600. There are other more plausible reasons such as maybe the N1m's animation performance wasn't very good and the gesture couldn't be implemented. Not having enough pixels isn't a good reason.
If the gesture is not needed to work, why does every post-iPhone smartphone slide-to-unlock feature use graphics?
Quote:
It isn't. It's an obvious and nonessential addition.
If it is not needed for the gesture to work, why do all phones using slide-to-unlock use the addition?
Quote:
It's called "giving your customers a choice". It's not necessarily a good thing.
If it is a choice, why do basically all smartphones make slide-to-unlock the default? Why isn't the pattern unlock used more often, presented more often.
The N1m had a 176x220 pixel resolution display. That's plenty. That's more than the original Treo 600. There are other more plausible reasons such as maybe the N1m's animation performance wasn't very good and the gesture couldn't be implemented. Not having enough pixels isn't a good reason.
If the gesture is not needed to work, why does every post-iPhone smartphone slide-to-unlock feature use graphics?
I also said "tiny". Your thumb would practically be covering the screen, so an animation is pointless. The graphical element showing the action was present in the Neonode.
Quote:
If it is not needed for the gesture to work, why do all phones using slide-to-unlock use the addition?
If it is a choice, why do basically all smartphones make slide-to-unlock the default? Why isn't the pattern unlock used more often, presented more often.
They use it, because it is an obvious improvement, the key word being obvious. It isn't necessary (or else, you wouldn't be able to use slide-to-unlock without watching, which we already established is possible).
I also said "tiny". Your thumb would practically be covering the screen, so an animation is pointless. The graphical element showing the action was present in the Neonode.
It's not so tiny that a graphical element can't be added. Looks to be about the size of a webOS Pixi/Veer display and they have touch animation features all over the place. The device is 52 mm wide. It's wide enough. From the video review from tnkgrl, her thumb wasn't covering the screen. Even Apple has a shorter stroke slide-to-unlock in iOS5 after a double-click to bring up the camera shortcut button and the audio controls, and also has about a half sized graphical elements for the slide-to-goto app notification.
Quote:
They use it, because it is an obvious improvement, the key word being obvious. It isn't necessary (or else, you wouldn't be able to use slide-to-unlock without watching, which we already established is possible).
Obvious? If it was an obvious addition, why is there no prior art of it? Palm devices, WinCE devices, this Neonode N1m, who knows what else, nobody appeared to use it. There were many touchscreen handheld devices 15 years prior to the iPhone.
The Dutch judge in the Apple-HTC/Samsung (don't remember which) court case holds your position on Apple's first slide-to-unlock patent, that it is obvious or trivial, but many things are trivial or obvious in hindsight. If it is obvious, it would have been done before, and Neonode should have done it. If it was trivial, then why do so many touchscreen devices use it today, and don't use the Neonode gesture. If there is a court case with this patent, I think the judge will reverse his/her opinion.
There is a conceptual difference in the Neonode implementation. Neonode used a swipe as a user input: yes, no, back, etc, as if you were entered a command in a CLI or voice control. The iPhone conceptual model is direct manipulation of onscreen elements. The gesture isn't the input, it's the movement of the onscreen elements. Eg, you can move the slider all the way to the right and back off to the left a bit and it won't unlock and the slider will automatically slide to the left. You can move that slider all the way back and forth all day and it won't unlock until the slider is all the way to the right and you left your finer up.
This a huge cognitive mode switch for the user akin to moving from CLI to GUI. That's why the iPhone concept as whole is now that dominant smartphone factor and not Blackberry/Treo or WinCE/Palm pen devices or Nokia Symbian candybars or Psion handtops.
It's not so tiny that a graphical element can't be added. Looks to be about the size of a webOS Pixi/Veer display and they have touch animation features all over the place. The device is 52 mm wide. It's wide enough. From the video review from tnkgrl, her thumb wasn't covering the screen. Even Apple has a shorter stroke slide-to-unlock in iOS5 after a double-click to bring up the camera shortcut button and the audio controls, and also has about a half sized graphical elements for the slide-to-goto app notification.
They could have had other reasons than those, it doesn't matter so I'm not going to argue the relevance of your examples. They didn't want an animation, they didn't put one -- and their slide-to-unlock works just as well as Apple's later implementation.
Quote:
Obvious? If it was an obvious addition, why is there no prior art of it? Palm devices, WinCE devices, this Neonode N1m, who knows what else, nobody appeared to use it. There were many touchscreen handheld devices 15 years prior to the iPhone.
The Dutch judge in the Apple-HTC/Samsung (don't remember which) court case holds your position on Apple's first slide-to-unlock patent, that it is obvious or trivial, but many things are trivial or obvious in hindsight. If it is obvious, it would have been done before, and Neonode should have done it. If it was trivial, then why do so many touchscreen devices use it today, and don't use the Neonode gesture. If there is a court case with this patent, I think the judge will reverse his/her opinion.
There is a conceptual difference in the Neonode implementation. Neonode used a swipe as a user input: yes, no, back, etc, as if you were entered a command in a CLI or voice control. The iPhone conceptual model is direct manipulation of onscreen elements. The gesture isn't the input, it's the movement of the onscreen elements. Eg, you can move the slider all the way to the right and back off to the left a bit and it won't unlock and the slider will automatically slide to the left. You can move that slider all the way back and forth all day and it won't unlock until the slider is all the way to the right and you left your finer up.
This a huge cognitive mode switch for the user akin to moving from CLI to GUI. That's why the iPhone concept as whole is now that dominant smartphone factor and not Blackberry/Treo or WinCE/Palm pen devices or Nokia Symbian candybars or Psion handtops.
Yes, obvious, which does not imply that Apple weren't the first to use it. But the obviousness implies that anyone could do it without prior art, with little to no effort or investment. That makes it not patentable. Importantly, the additional animation is also dispensable since the gesture works without it. Thus, it's not far from being a mere decoration.
As to the semantics of the gesture, I already wrote that it was immaterial, go back to my previous post if you are interested.
What does this have to do with understanding basic facts about physical reality? Thanks for playing anyway...
Thanks for your sane reply. So, 1 and 2 are "yes", so far so good. Now, if you can unlock an iPhone by slide-to-unlock without looking at it (2. yes), then you are not making any use of the on-screen image, which means that it may just as well not be there. Therefore the slide-to-unlock, as implemented by Apple, doesn't really need the image, and 3 is also a "yes".
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.
Why do you ignore my reply? [insult removed] The image is important. I don't think you have used an iPhone.
1,3, 4 are qualitatively no because if your finger did not touch the right area and move in the right direction as described in the patent the device won't open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tzeshan
Why do you ignore my reply?...
You basically agreed with me. My fourth question was:
Quote:
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?
They could have had other reasons than those, it doesn't matter so I'm not going to argue the relevance of your examples. They didn't want an animation, they didn't put one -- and their slide-to-unlock works just as well as Apple's later implementation.
You have no idea what the Neonode developers wanted and didn't want. I'd love to hear what they were thinking though.
Right off the bat, we know the Neonode method doesn't work as well as Apple's. Why? No one uses it. So, their slide-to-unlock method doesn't work just as well.
It's conceptually like learning a command in a CLI. With Apple's method, it's obvious just by looking at it. In addition, Neonode "overloads the operator" by using a left-to-right swipe to mean yes, unlock, and the right-to-left swipe as back or no. They are using it as a command input with multiple meanings, kind of like the 2-button design (plus D-pad) in dumbphones all these years. That to me sounds like they weren't trying to implement a direct manipulation touchscreen UI and were using gestures as an input command. Very conceptually different.
Quote:
Yes, obvious, which does not imply that Apple weren't the first to use it. But the obviousness implies that anyone could do it without prior art, with little to no effort or investment. That makes it not patentable. Importantly, the additional animation is also dispensable since the gesture works without it. Thus, it's not far from being a mere decoration.[/quote[
As to the semantics of the gesture, I already wrote that it was immaterial, go back to my previous post if you are interested.
Apple doesn't implement a "gesture" for slide-to-unlock. The input to unlock the phone is to slide the slider all the way to the right, then lift the finger. Like I said before, you can touch the slider, and slide it half-way, stop, go backwards, wiggle it, slide it all the way back and forth, you can do this all day, and it won't unlock until the slider is all the way to the right and you lift your finger. Since when is doing these kinds of things a "gesture".
It's not a "gestural" command syntax like the Neonode. It's primarily a direct manipulation UI design. In such a design, you don't use gestures. You use your fingers to move graphical elements.
Apple actually uses some finger gestures in the iOS UI. When you are in a list such as mail or a list of bookmarks, a horizontal swipe, in either direction, across a list item will cause the UI to bring up a delete button right inside the list item. A touch or swipe is a cancel. On the iPad 2, a 4 or 5 squeeze will bring you to the home screen. I actually don't like that they do this. It's a convenient shortcut, but it could be done by direct manipulation.
The graphics are also indispensable. That's why everyone uses graphics. It's not trivial either. It's a breakthrough design. It involves a lot of work to get to work as smooth and location-fuzzy, direction-fuzzy, and velocity-fuzzy as Apple has done it. If the animation/graphics is dispensable, why does everyone use it?
Patentable? Who knows. But the direct manipulation design embodied in the original iPhone was the breakthrough and that's why everyone uses it. If it was a gestural command, it would be more prevalent. It's used, but sparingly imo: webOS uses it activate the app switching interface. Playbook uses it for the same type of thing from all four edges. Android probably uses it for notification screen, I don't know. Apple doesn't use it for their notification screen.
Comments
The semantics are irrelevant. Whether the gesture resembles "an already familiar real-world mechanism for operating a locking mechanism" or not is completely immaterial, and in fact, it doesn't resemble anything widely used (what do you open by sliding your thumb across it, really?). The gesture is exactly the same no matter what meaning you prescribe to it. You shouldn't be able to patent something old just because you see some deep new meaning in it.
What you're trying to convince me is roughly this: Neonode designed a mouse trap, but they didn't understand it can trap mice (?!), so Apple should be granted a patent for finding a similarity between Neonode's invention and another device that traps mice, and drawing on Neonode's device to emphasize that resemblance.
Can you answer this: would Apple's slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there? Could one unlock iPhone's screen without looking at it? Does the unlock work if the back light is dimmed, or the outside light is too bright for one to read the screen?
If you answered the above questions with "yes", then you know whether Apple's addition to the method is dispensable.
Neonode's idea is very generic. Swiping is natural on a touch screen. But Apple's slide to unlock patent is very advance.
This is like a piece of cloth. Put the cloth on your body is generic and natural to do. However, a taylor can cut the cloth to make different designs. And they can be patented if nobody have designed it before.
Clearly Apple was not attempting to patent the left-to-right finger movement/gesture, and the USPTO was apparently able to figure that out on their own.
The issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
It's clearly useful. It is novel with notable differences from the Neonode implementation. If it had been obvious, Neonode would have have done what Apple did (which cannot be thought of as anything less than an improvement), but they didn't. Apparently the idea of attempting to conceptually connect their left-to-right gesture with the process of unlatching something never occurred to them. It only became obvious once they saw the iPhone. (Just my guess, admittedly, but this is what seems most likely.)
You didn't answer any of my questions.
You didn't answer any of my questions.
Correct. It's easy to get sidetracked by hypotheticals. I'm more interested in looking at the central issue.
Correct. It's easy to get sidetracked by hypotheticals. I'm more interested in looking at the central issue.
You are avoiding the central issue. Those are really simple questions. However you prefer keeping your head in the sand, because you maybe begin to realize that the answer would mean that you've been wrong all along.
Here are the questions that scare you so much, once again for clarity:
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?
2. Can one unlock the iPhone without looking at it?
3. Would Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there?
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?
You are avoiding the central issue. Those are really simple questions.
For the last time...
The central issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
Your simple questions do not serve to enlighten the issue. Deny that obvious fact and you're the one whose head is buried in the sand!
For the last time...
The central issue is whether or not Apple has introduced a non-obvious, useful, and novel innovation.
Your simple questions do not serve to enlighten the issue. Deny that obvious fact and you're the one whose head is buried in the sand!
The only way to prove that my questions do not enlighten the issue is to answer them. Then we would see.
However you refuse to defend your point and instead blankly restate it. Gotcha.
Discourse (from Latin discursus, meaning "running to and from").
In your case, it's only "running from".
I'm trying to understand if you guys who are defending this patent are doing so based on existing terminology/law or on principal.
You do know this is the Internet, right? Nobody on either side knows patent terminology nor patent law.
Props to apple for being the first to implement this idea to the mass market in a pretty package but in no way should this be considered unique after seeing that neonode video. whatever excuse you come up with such as "real world action??" is a fabrication to divert attention away from the concept. how much simpler can it get? 1. screen is locked 2. wake device 3. swipe finger from one side to the other and screen is unlocked. yes or no doesn't matter at this point. the concept is right there for a company to manipulate and claim as their own
I can think of many ways to unlock a touchscreen device: enter a pin, tap on a specific button, tap on a specific button multiple times, tap on a series of buttons, enter a block character, tap-and-hold on a specific area or button, etc. I can probably keep on going after more thought.
But let me ask you about the novelty between the Neonode N1m swipe-to-unlock gesture and Apple's iOS swipe-to-unlock method. Do any devices implement Neonode's N1m swipe-to-unlock idea? Do any devices implement the iOS swipe-to-lock idea?
As far as I know, no phone implements the N1m's swipe-to-unlock gesture. I do believe there are many implementations of Apple's swipe-to-unlock idea. I think this basically states that Apple's idea of using direct manipulation on an onscreen graphical element is the big innovation, idea, invention, whatever you want to call it, not the gesture in of itself.
Is it worth patenting? Well, the question isn't going to be solved. But I think people are giving Apple's swipe-to-unlock the short shrift here. If Neonode's idea was so important, why don't people use it? Every implementation basically uses a direct manipulation of an onscreen graphical element.
Google actually came up with alternative: the pattern unlock, but for some reason, many Android phones don't use it as default. Why?
... an onscreen graphical element ...
The addition of the graphics is obvious. Neonode had a tiny low-res screen, which would make drawing animation problematic. Plus, it's not needed at all for the gesture to work.
Is it worth patenting?
It isn't. It's an obvious and nonessential addition.
Google actually came up with alternative: the pattern unlock, but for some reason, many Android phones don't use it as default. Why?
It's called "giving your customers a choice". It's not necessarily a good thing.
You are avoiding the central issue. Those are really simple questions. However you prefer keeping your head in the sand, because you maybe begin to realize that the answer would mean that you've been wrong all along.
Here are the questions that scare you so much, once again for clarity:
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?
2. Can one unlock the iPhone without looking at it?
3. Would Apple's implementation of slide-to-unlock work if the on-screen image wasn't there?
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?
He probably does not have an iPhone. I can answer these questions for him.
The answers to 1,3,4 are qualitatively no. So, what is your point?
The only way to prove that my questions do not enlighten the issue is to answer them. Then we would see.
On the other hand, the only way to prove that your questions do enlighten the issue is to first answer them.
But surely you don't need me to enlighten you by answering your "really simple" questions--ones so simple that you will no doubt have already discovered the answers on your own? All that remains is for you to make your point. So, be my guest. Explain how these simple questions enlighten the central issue.
(Meanwhile, someone else seems to have correctly deduced that I don't have an iPhone...)
The answers to 1,3,4 are qualitatively no.
Uh, you're crazy, right? 1 and 2 are outright yeses. Three's a no. Four is contingent on his definition of 'animated image', which I believe (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) pertains to the lock icon and its motion in conjunction with one's finger.
And if that's the case, four is a maybe.
Uh, you're crazy, right? 1 and 2 are outright yeses. Three's a no. Four is contingent on his definition of 'animated image', which I believe (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) pertains to the lock icon and its motion in conjunction with one's finger.
And if that's the case, four is a maybe.
1,3, 4 are qualitatively no because if your finger did not touch the right area and move in the right direction as described in the patent the device won't open.
...
(Meanwhile, someone else seems to have correctly deduced that I don't have an iPhone...)
What does this have to do with understanding basic facts about physical reality? Thanks for playing anyway...
Uh, you're crazy, right? 1 and 2 are outright yeses. Three's a no. Four is contingent on his definition of 'animated image', which I believe (and he should correct me if I'm wrong) pertains to the lock icon and its motion in conjunction with one's finger.
And if that's the case, four is a maybe.
Thanks for your sane reply. So, 1 and 2 are "yes", so far so good. Now, if you can unlock an iPhone by slide-to-unlock without looking at it (2. yes), then you are not making any use of the on-screen image, which means that it may just as well not be there. Therefore the slide-to-unlock, as implemented by Apple, doesn't really need the image, and 3 is also a "yes".
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.
The addition of the graphics is obvious. Neonode had a tiny low-res screen, which would make drawing animation problematic. Plus, it's not needed at all for the gesture to work.
The N1m had a 176x220 pixel resolution display. That's plenty. That's more than the original Treo 600. There are other more plausible reasons such as maybe the N1m's animation performance wasn't very good and the gesture couldn't be implemented. Not having enough pixels isn't a good reason.
If the gesture is not needed to work, why does every post-iPhone smartphone slide-to-unlock feature use graphics?
It isn't. It's an obvious and nonessential addition.
If it is not needed for the gesture to work, why do all phones using slide-to-unlock use the addition?
It's called "giving your customers a choice". It's not necessarily a good thing.
If it is a choice, why do basically all smartphones make slide-to-unlock the default? Why isn't the pattern unlock used more often, presented more often.
The N1m had a 176x220 pixel resolution display. That's plenty. That's more than the original Treo 600. There are other more plausible reasons such as maybe the N1m's animation performance wasn't very good and the gesture couldn't be implemented. Not having enough pixels isn't a good reason.
If the gesture is not needed to work, why does every post-iPhone smartphone slide-to-unlock feature use graphics?
I also said "tiny". Your thumb would practically be covering the screen, so an animation is pointless. The graphical element showing the action was present in the Neonode.
If it is not needed for the gesture to work, why do all phones using slide-to-unlock use the addition?
If it is a choice, why do basically all smartphones make slide-to-unlock the default? Why isn't the pattern unlock used more often, presented more often.
They use it, because it is an obvious improvement, the key word being obvious. It isn't necessary (or else, you wouldn't be able to use slide-to-unlock without watching, which we already established is possible).
I also said "tiny". Your thumb would practically be covering the screen, so an animation is pointless. The graphical element showing the action was present in the Neonode.
It's not so tiny that a graphical element can't be added. Looks to be about the size of a webOS Pixi/Veer display and they have touch animation features all over the place. The device is 52 mm wide. It's wide enough. From the video review from tnkgrl, her thumb wasn't covering the screen. Even Apple has a shorter stroke slide-to-unlock in iOS5 after a double-click to bring up the camera shortcut button and the audio controls, and also has about a half sized graphical elements for the slide-to-goto app notification.
They use it, because it is an obvious improvement, the key word being obvious. It isn't necessary (or else, you wouldn't be able to use slide-to-unlock without watching, which we already established is possible).
Obvious? If it was an obvious addition, why is there no prior art of it? Palm devices, WinCE devices, this Neonode N1m, who knows what else, nobody appeared to use it. There were many touchscreen handheld devices 15 years prior to the iPhone.
The Dutch judge in the Apple-HTC/Samsung (don't remember which) court case holds your position on Apple's first slide-to-unlock patent, that it is obvious or trivial, but many things are trivial or obvious in hindsight. If it is obvious, it would have been done before, and Neonode should have done it. If it was trivial, then why do so many touchscreen devices use it today, and don't use the Neonode gesture. If there is a court case with this patent, I think the judge will reverse his/her opinion.
There is a conceptual difference in the Neonode implementation. Neonode used a swipe as a user input: yes, no, back, etc, as if you were entered a command in a CLI or voice control. The iPhone conceptual model is direct manipulation of onscreen elements. The gesture isn't the input, it's the movement of the onscreen elements. Eg, you can move the slider all the way to the right and back off to the left a bit and it won't unlock and the slider will automatically slide to the left. You can move that slider all the way back and forth all day and it won't unlock until the slider is all the way to the right and you left your finer up.
This a huge cognitive mode switch for the user akin to moving from CLI to GUI. That's why the iPhone concept as whole is now that dominant smartphone factor and not Blackberry/Treo or WinCE/Palm pen devices or Nokia Symbian candybars or Psion handtops.
It's not so tiny that a graphical element can't be added. Looks to be about the size of a webOS Pixi/Veer display and they have touch animation features all over the place. The device is 52 mm wide. It's wide enough. From the video review from tnkgrl, her thumb wasn't covering the screen. Even Apple has a shorter stroke slide-to-unlock in iOS5 after a double-click to bring up the camera shortcut button and the audio controls, and also has about a half sized graphical elements for the slide-to-goto app notification.
They could have had other reasons than those, it doesn't matter so I'm not going to argue the relevance of your examples. They didn't want an animation, they didn't put one -- and their slide-to-unlock works just as well as Apple's later implementation.
Obvious? If it was an obvious addition, why is there no prior art of it? Palm devices, WinCE devices, this Neonode N1m, who knows what else, nobody appeared to use it. There were many touchscreen handheld devices 15 years prior to the iPhone.
The Dutch judge in the Apple-HTC/Samsung (don't remember which) court case holds your position on Apple's first slide-to-unlock patent, that it is obvious or trivial, but many things are trivial or obvious in hindsight. If it is obvious, it would have been done before, and Neonode should have done it. If it was trivial, then why do so many touchscreen devices use it today, and don't use the Neonode gesture. If there is a court case with this patent, I think the judge will reverse his/her opinion.
There is a conceptual difference in the Neonode implementation. Neonode used a swipe as a user input: yes, no, back, etc, as if you were entered a command in a CLI or voice control. The iPhone conceptual model is direct manipulation of onscreen elements. The gesture isn't the input, it's the movement of the onscreen elements. Eg, you can move the slider all the way to the right and back off to the left a bit and it won't unlock and the slider will automatically slide to the left. You can move that slider all the way back and forth all day and it won't unlock until the slider is all the way to the right and you left your finer up.
This a huge cognitive mode switch for the user akin to moving from CLI to GUI. That's why the iPhone concept as whole is now that dominant smartphone factor and not Blackberry/Treo or WinCE/Palm pen devices or Nokia Symbian candybars or Psion handtops.
Yes, obvious, which does not imply that Apple weren't the first to use it. But the obviousness implies that anyone could do it without prior art, with little to no effort or investment. That makes it not patentable. Importantly, the additional animation is also dispensable since the gesture works without it. Thus, it's not far from being a mere decoration.
As to the semantics of the gesture, I already wrote that it was immaterial, go back to my previous post if you are interested.
What does this have to do with understanding basic facts about physical reality? Thanks for playing anyway...
Thanks for your sane reply. So, 1 and 2 are "yes", so far so good. Now, if you can unlock an iPhone by slide-to-unlock without looking at it (2. yes), then you are not making any use of the on-screen image, which means that it may just as well not be there. Therefore the slide-to-unlock, as implemented by Apple, doesn't really need the image, and 3 is also a "yes".
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.
Why do you ignore my reply? [insult removed] The image is important. I don't think you have used an iPhone.
1,3, 4 are qualitatively no because if your finger did not touch the right area and move in the right direction as described in the patent the device won't open.
Why do you ignore my reply?...
You basically agreed with me. My fourth question was:
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?
You said "no". I think so too.
They could have had other reasons than those, it doesn't matter so I'm not going to argue the relevance of your examples. They didn't want an animation, they didn't put one -- and their slide-to-unlock works just as well as Apple's later implementation.
You have no idea what the Neonode developers wanted and didn't want. I'd love to hear what they were thinking though.
Right off the bat, we know the Neonode method doesn't work as well as Apple's. Why? No one uses it. So, their slide-to-unlock method doesn't work just as well.
It's conceptually like learning a command in a CLI. With Apple's method, it's obvious just by looking at it. In addition, Neonode "overloads the operator" by using a left-to-right swipe to mean yes, unlock, and the right-to-left swipe as back or no. They are using it as a command input with multiple meanings, kind of like the 2-button design (plus D-pad) in dumbphones all these years. That to me sounds like they weren't trying to implement a direct manipulation touchscreen UI and were using gestures as an input command. Very conceptually different.
Yes, obvious, which does not imply that Apple weren't the first to use it. But the obviousness implies that anyone could do it without prior art, with little to no effort or investment. That makes it not patentable. Importantly, the additional animation is also dispensable since the gesture works without it. Thus, it's not far from being a mere decoration.[/quote[
As to the semantics of the gesture, I already wrote that it was immaterial, go back to my previous post if you are interested.
Apple doesn't implement a "gesture" for slide-to-unlock. The input to unlock the phone is to slide the slider all the way to the right, then lift the finger. Like I said before, you can touch the slider, and slide it half-way, stop, go backwards, wiggle it, slide it all the way back and forth, you can do this all day, and it won't unlock until the slider is all the way to the right and you lift your finger. Since when is doing these kinds of things a "gesture".
It's not a "gestural" command syntax like the Neonode. It's primarily a direct manipulation UI design. In such a design, you don't use gestures. You use your fingers to move graphical elements.
Apple actually uses some finger gestures in the iOS UI. When you are in a list such as mail or a list of bookmarks, a horizontal swipe, in either direction, across a list item will cause the UI to bring up a delete button right inside the list item. A touch or swipe is a cancel. On the iPad 2, a 4 or 5 squeeze will bring you to the home screen. I actually don't like that they do this. It's a convenient shortcut, but it could be done by direct manipulation.
The graphics are also indispensable. That's why everyone uses graphics. It's not trivial either. It's a breakthrough design. It involves a lot of work to get to work as smooth and location-fuzzy, direction-fuzzy, and velocity-fuzzy as Apple has done it. If the animation/graphics is dispensable, why does everyone use it?
Patentable? Who knows. But the direct manipulation design embodied in the original iPhone was the breakthrough and that's why everyone uses it. If it was a gestural command, it would be more prevalent. It's used, but sparingly imo: webOS uses it activate the app switching interface. Playbook uses it for the same type of thing from all four edges. Android probably uses it for notification screen, I don't know. Apple doesn't use it for their notification screen.