xraynano

It might be a micro-Fresnel lens right over the imager: those rainbows rays from the sun would be an artifact from the fresnel zone lines.

wizard69 said:

lkrupp said:

DAalseth said:

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. 

Inventing something and developing a product are two separate things.   Why people don’t grasp this is beyond me.   The doctor actually has something to stand on, it might not be enough but it isn’t air like many suits against Apple.  

Things like this actually makes Apple look a bit pathetic.   Simply buying the patent would have eliminated the whole nonsense of this legal action.  

Buying the patent would have been useless, because there is nothing in the patent. The patent says: use a computer to measure heartbeat over time, analyze the data in real time, making sure to use good data, and then give out an alarm when the correct result is generated by an unspecified algorithm. What is the invention? That you can use a computer to take data and analyze in real time? Obvious to someone that practices the art (of medicine and computer use). Does not even really specify what sensor to use, or what kind of computer. Apple will be doing the WHOLE WORLD a favor by STOMPING on such a frivolous patent. It hurts ANYONE ELSE that might use a computer to check for atrial fib in real time to get rid of this piece of TRASH.

melgross said:

davidlewis54 said:

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.

ralphie said:

MissNomer said:

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.

fastasleep said:

GeorgeBMac said:

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.