I'm usually very skeptical of these suits, but this one might have legs.
Nope. Reread... significant prior art, never developed a product. Just another “inventor" who thinks they have Apple by the short hairs.
Prior art is not necessarily directly related to a particular patent. A patent can use various bits of prior art to come up with a patentable device. patent law allows that. It’s when the patent consists entirely of a particular bit of prior art that the problem occurs.
So if there are four bits of prior art, none of which lead to a workable device by themselves, and someone invents a device that uses all four, it’s patentable.
I’m certain the plaintiff is kicking himself for not specifying a “wrist-mounted watch-type device” instead of “devices attached to "appendages" specified as a finger in the patent, or a "cuff device".
It would have helped his case immeasurably.
Yeah. There are a lot huge holes in this patent.
It really should be invalidated based on: 2. A method of claim 1, wherein the analyzing includes ascertaining a mean and a standard deviation of the succession of time intervals, the determination being based upon a quotient formed by dividing said standard deviation by said mean and comparing the quotient with a threshold value.
21. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein said threshold value is within the range of 0.05 to 0.10.
This is the only thing that may be original in the entire patent, and it is basically high school math. Maybe he conducted his own survey for heartbeat data to develop the threshold values. Then, I would really question if they described method even works with enough accuracy for an actual product.
If Apple used a neural network to determine a-fib, or some other technique, this patent obviously has no applicability, and the suit dies.
Good points. What you're describing sure makes this patent sound like a limited-scope, specific implementation technique, aka, a "recipe." Any deviation from the recipe would seemingly be outside of the scope of the recipe, even if the recipe was patentable. It would be like describing a recipe for chocolate chip cookies with a specific ratio of chocolate chips for a given weight of cookie batter. If someone comes along with a cookie recipe that has a different ratio of chocolate chips or the addition of coconut flakes as an ingredient, would the new recipe be guilty of infringing on the original chocolate chip cookie recipe patent?
Who knows how this or any of the unending daily inrush of claims of patent infringement against Apple will turn out. Patents have become an industry onto themselves, and even more so in the past couple of decades. Unless you're directly involved in the intricate technical and legal details involved with "patents-as-a-product" it's very hard to know how these things turn out, even when you are a named inventor on several patents. Logicality and legality don't always blend, especially when juries are involved and when the patent in question seems questionable/weak but was still granted. What I do know is that unless you're deeply involved in the workings of the patent industry, picking a side about who's in the right and who's in the wrong is mostly a case of cheerleading for your own team.
You devise a machine that enables automation of any task that used to be done manually- amazing, revolutionary, puts a dent on the universe. You devise a means of using such a machine to automate a particular existing manual task- meh.
Another reason why application software per se should not be patentable. Copyright, maybe. But certainly not patent.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
I don't see how simply timing a heart beat and measuring differences -- which is what the Apple Watch does -- can be restricted by any patent.
I could see patenting the technology of how to time it and measure differences or even how to "see" the heart beat itself. But simply timing it and measuring the differences would be like patenting the measurement of a person's height or weight you might patent the tools for doing so (like a scale or ruler) but not the process itself.
Very interesting! Chinese medicine doctors have being using heartbeat to detect disease for hundreds or more years. The imperial doctor is allegedly able to detect whether the queen or concubine is pregnant simply by measuring pulse with his fingers. The best doctor is allegedly able to detect a disease by measuring pulse through a string tie to the wrist of the patient.
My hoped for outcome is he becomes destitute from the legal fees.
Why? I get this is an Apple-centric site, but this hardly a troll - it's someone who filed a patent and feels Apple is infringing on it. While I don't think he has (or should have) a case, if I were him I would probably do the same thing.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
Did you patent that idea along with the methods of storage and retrieval? No? Then, no, you cannot.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
How specific was your concept? Did it involve digital storage? No? How about the idea of pits storing bits? No?
a patent needs to be specific enough. It also needs to be a complete system. Vague ideas do not consist of a patentable device. And ideas aren’t patentable anyway. It needs to be a workable device, process, or method.
I love how everyone’s an expert in these comment sections. “Nope, re-read please, prior art, invalid patent, Googled and found nothing, chancer, etc, etc, etc.” Any chance we can all stop being passive aggressive arseholes for two minutes and just see how it turns out?
Hey! Quit taking the joy out of the forum!
Nothing brightens my day more than reading these threads when having my coffee.
Read it. A real bad patent, it should never have been approved. Not only, as others have noted, is there significant prior art and what is proposed is OBVIOUS to those knowledgable in the state-of-the-art, there is no real "invention" in there. The "so-called" invention is pointing out that if you monitor a heartbeat over a fixed period of time, collect the data with a computer, analyze it with an "algorithm", you can determine if there is atrial fib. In other words, you can do something if you hook it up to a sensor, computer, and output. Duh. The "algorithm" is not specified or part of the patent.
I don't see how simply timing a heart beat and measuring differences -- which is what the Apple Watch does -- can be restricted by any patent.
I could see patenting the technology of how to time it and measure differences or even how to "see" the heart beat itself. But simply timing it and measuring the differences would be like patenting the measurement of a person's height or weight you might patent the tools for doing so (like a scale or ruler) but not the process itself.
You know, if you read the patent linked to in the article, it actually does describe the use of the technologies and other components and methods in great detail.
No it doesn't. 95% of the patent is regurgitating prior art or a description of the problem. The "meat" is in a single paragraph and diagram, essentially describing that one could use a sensor, computer, and output to magically using some unspecified algorithm determine atrial fib in real time. In other words, "Hey, you can use a computer, give me a patent". Rubbish. This would never even get through our lawyers screening in my old lab.
Methinx the good doctor is about to undergo a valuable lesson in the huge cavernous difference between filing a patent and actually having a valid one.
These devices have been around for yonks - I know 'cause my a-fib was monitored using one way back in the late 90s.
Prior art is gonna kick this one to the curb.
I guess you don’t know much about the patent system. Also take a look at how many of these never-to-become-real patents Apple has filed.
The doctor will be on the winning end of this suit, likely a massive settlement.
No, this is a bad patent, if you read it. So much meaningless gobbledygook, with a single paragraph of a so-called invention: use a computer in real time to monitor heartbeat with an alarm output, use some unspecified "algorithm", magic happens, and you detect atrial fib. That is what is called "obvious to a person skilled in the art". Anyone that knows anything about atrial fib, its basic measurement, and that computers can take data and calculate on the fly could write this. The heart of any true invention in this area would be the use of specific new detectors (not claimed here), or new knowledge of atrial fib (not claimed here), or a new algorithm (not claimed here). Pure junk patent.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
How specific was your concept? Did it involve digital storage? No? How about the idea of pits storing bits? No?
a patent needs to be specific enough. It also needs to be a complete system. Vague ideas do not consist of a patentable device. And ideas aren’t patentable anyway. It needs to be a workable device, process, or method.
Which is why the patent in question is bad. There is a lot of discussion of the problem, prior work, blah blah blah, but there is no real invention, just a description of the problem and its requirements, and a statement that if you hook up a sensor, computer, and alarm, take data in real time, use only the good data (by some unspecified algorithm), you have an invention. Jeez.
You devise a machine that enables automation of any task that used to be done manually- amazing, revolutionary, puts a dent on the universe. You devise a means of using such a machine to automate a particular existing manual task- meh.
Another reason why application software per se should not be patentable. Copyright, maybe. But certainly not patent.
Yes. Code is written speech and definitely protected via copyright. That’s all it need be, since copyright protects it from copying theft. Patents for abstract software ideas are nonsense, just like why there aren’t patents for other writing mediums — “patent for suspenseful thriller whereby a protagonist driving a motorcycle is chased by a car down tight streets”. Nope. But the words in that story/script (its implementation) are certainly protected as they’re a unique way of expressing it via language.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
Did you patent that idea along with the methods of storage and retrieval? No? Then, no, you cannot.
The analogy being this guy didn’t patent the detailed methods of storage and retrieval you’re talking about. The meat of the needed microprocessor, particulars of the logic array, algorithms for wrist calculation, etc. It’s too abstract since he glossed over all the hard, particular bits. “Use computer!” isn’t a patent.
As ImAlwaysRight said, phones and cameras were known things, but putting them together wasn’t obvious. Putting optical detection into a wrist-worn device requires special calculations and implementation details and wasn’t obvious.
In the late 1960s I wrote a story for school homework. This included a data collection device being a small silver disc on which the data was stored. Can I claim royalties for every CD, DVD and Blu-ray which has been made?
Comments
You devise a means of using such a machine to automate a particular existing manual task- meh.
Another reason why application software per se should not be patentable. Copyright, maybe. But certainly not patent.
a patent needs to be specific enough. It also needs to be a complete system. Vague ideas do not consist of a patentable device. And ideas aren’t patentable anyway. It needs to be a workable device, process, or method.
Hey! Quit taking the joy out of the forum!
Nothing brightens my day more than reading these threads when having my coffee.
The analogy being this guy didn’t patent the detailed methods of storage and retrieval you’re talking about. The meat of the needed microprocessor, particulars of the logic array, algorithms for wrist calculation, etc. It’s too abstract since he glossed over all the hard, particular bits. “Use computer!” isn’t a patent.
As ImAlwaysRight said, phones and cameras were known things, but putting them together wasn’t obvious. Putting optical detection into a wrist-worn device requires special calculations and implementation details and wasn’t obvious.
Did you copyright it or Patent it ?