Some sort of patent application on emoticon transportation

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sonz70
Why did you clear the OP?

Because I'm a simple folk who cheerleads and doesn't research every article that's posted. I goofed and am now a microsoft basher stereotyped simple folk.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: sonz70
Why did you clear the OP?

because he got pwned and takes the internet seriously.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: sonz70
Why did you clear the OP?

because he got pwned and takes the internet seriously.

Sorry if I take ZDnet seriously. Thanks for informing me that I'm more of a simple folk than I thought.

 

[bsobel]

claim 1:
a method comprising selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon
assigning a character sequence to the pixels;
transmitting the character sequence toa llow for reconstructino of the pixels at the destination

claims are what an applicant is trying to protect

Yep, this was around the ability to transfer the custom emoticon from one place to another. IM systems have the emoticons pre-deployed on both ends. If I want to send you an emoticon of a guy ripping up a patent (for example ) you'd need to already have it or at least the ability to go get it (like here you don't have the emoticons, the are retreived from a central location). Claim 1 is around the need to transfer the image since there is no central repository and no pre-deployment.

Bill

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: sonz70
Why did you clear the OP?

because he got pwned and takes the internet seriously.

Engineer made it clear he posted it in good faith. This is not time for (nor the proper usage) of 'pwned'.

 

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Yossarian

Originally posted by: sonz70
Why did you clear the OP?

because he got pwned and takes the internet seriously.

Engineer made it clear he posted it in good faith. This is not time for (nor the proper usage) of 'pwned'.

both of you, lighten the fvck up

 

[Engineer]

An apology to bsobel for unsportsman like conduct. Wasn't called for on my part.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Engineer
An apology to bsobel for unsportsman like conduct. Wasn't called for on my part.

We should knock it off before the get a room comments start

 

[MikeKi]

Originally posted by: Engineer
An apology to bsobel for unsportsman like conduct. Wasn't called for on my part.

Engineer you better apology.

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: bsobel

claim 1:
a method comprising selecting pixels to be used as an emoticon
assigning a character sequence to the pixels;
transmitting the character sequence toa llow for reconstructino of the pixels at the destination

claims are what an applicant is trying to protect

Yep, this was around the ability to transfer the custom emoticon from one place to another. IM systems have the emoticons pre-deployed on both ends. If I want to send you an emoticon of a guy ripping up a patent (for example ) you'd need to already have it or at least the ability to go get it (like here you don't have the emoticons, the are retreived from a central location). Claim 1 is around the need to transfer the image since there is no central repository and no pre-deployment.

Bill

selecting pixels (a smiley face)
assing a character sequence ( ": )" )

transmitting the character sequence ( i type ": )")

smiley is reconstructed at destination (smiley is shown on the screen)

reconstruction is too broad to state that a custom emoticon is sent over the network and
you cannot automatically assume things that aren't explicity stated in the claim even if they are disclosed in the applicant's specification

with just claim 1 i would reject under a normal emoticon

 

[sonz70]

So, we misread one thing, and now its a microsoft bashing/simple minded? That is kind of weak.

Still is news that they even applied for this patent.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sonz70
So, we misread one thing, and now its a microsoft bashing/simple minded? That is kind of weak.

Still is news that they even applied for this patent.

Nothing new here as we allow more and more Corporate control of everything in the U.S.

Wake up


or don't, it's likely too late at this point anyway.

 

[bsobel]

selecting pixels (a smiley face)
assing a character sequence ( ": )" )
transmitting the character sequence ( i type ": )")
smiley is reconstructed at destination (smiley is shown on the screen)

Well, we are now doing the examiners job. Reconstruction could get narrowed, but I actually don't think it's too broad given the context.

you cannot automatically assume things that aren't explicity stated in the claim even if they are disclosed in the applicant's specification

Actually you can, the specification is used in patent litigation (we've been thru a number of these).

with just claim 1 i would reject under a normal emoticon

I think it's not the same, but worse case it gets reworded more narrow.

My original question was, did anyone know of prior art to what they are actually trying to do?

And to you, curious as you seem to understand this fairly well, have you done any patent work in the past? (just curious)

Bill

 

[mchammer187]

Originally posted by: bsobel

selecting pixels (a smiley face)
assing a character sequence ( ": )" )
transmitting the character sequence ( i type ": )")
smiley is reconstructed at destination (smiley is shown on the screen)

Well, we are now doing the examiners job. Reconstruction could get narrowed, but I actually don't think it's too broad given the context.

you cannot automatically assume things that aren't explicity stated in the claim even if they are disclosed in the applicant's specification

Actually you can, the specification is used in patent litigation (we've been thru a number of these).

with just claim 1 i would reject under a normal emoticon

I think it's not the same, but worse case it gets reworded more narrow.

My original question was, did anyone know of prior art to what they are actually trying to do?

And to you, curious as you seem to understand this fairly well, have you done any patent work in the past? (just curious)

Bill

the spec can only limit the claim to any special definitions that are defined in the specifcation like for the purposes of the application the word reconstruction: is defined as "blahaha"

the spec can be used as evidence in litigation as well but it cannot really limit the claim in any other way

the only exception i can think of offhand is a "means for " claim


anyways are you by any chance a patent lawyer?

 

[bsobel]

anyways are you by any chance a patent lawyer?

No, I'm an engineer, but I work with patent lawyers frequently (I have a number of patents complete, as well as those in the pipeline) and have worked with our IP team on some litigations.

Bill