The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s Decision
The Circuit court of appeals found that a digital camera can be an “information” device in certain circumstances, and found that the patent-in-suit was invalid because it did not meet the “information” requirement of 35 U. “Information” is an important term in the patent law. Although the patent in suit failed to meet the minimum information requirement, the court found that the concept behind the Digital Cameras was “informational,” and that the patents therefore covered “information” devices. The court also found that the “information” requirement required disclosure of the “function” of the information-seeking device and that the “function” requirement was not satisfied with the camera in this case. The court did not find, however, that the requirement of “function” was met in this case. The court rejected the arguments made by the appellee, Apple Computer, Inc. , that the concept behind a Digital Camera is “a mere `pointing device. ‘” The court concluded that the Digital Camera’s design was a “functional” device, and that the “function” requirement was not satisfied. Judge Moore wrote the decision, joined by Judge Ripple, and filed a dissenting opinion. The Federal Circuit’s decision is: The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected the argument of Apple Computer Inc. that a digital camera that is designed to photograph objects without making them visible over the image is a “pointing device” such that every digital camera has the same patent protection as a conventional camera which photographs an image over an image. The court held that it was not “a point” at all, because the Digital Cameras’ “pointing device” is their ability to capture an image through an LCD screen. The court held that the “information” requirement had to be fulfilled because the mere fact that an LCD screen is used as a part of the camera did not make the camera “an information” device. The court also held that one of the “function” of the digital camera was “functionality,” which is satisfied if “a person of ordinary skill in the information technology field,” who possessed a device equipped with these features would use the device for information seeking purposes. The judge made a compelling point for the validity of the “information” requirement that he stated: “The information” requirement is not as high a hurdle as some might advocate.
A New Look at Patent Ineligibility in Yu v. Apple
Article Title: A New Look at Patent Ineligibility in Yu v Apple | Computer Hardware. Full Article Text: The U. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) current system for evaluating the ineligibility of U. patent applications for a new U. patented invention is unhelpful and unduly burdensome for patent applicants. In my view, such ineligibility should be reduced to a very simple rule: A USPTO examiner should consider only the claims underlying the novel idea in the application’s written description, and the claims underlying the novel idea in the specification; the claims are not considered in assessing the legal sufficiency of the application. To the extent that it is impossible or unnecessary to require an applicant to include a written description, the examiner should consider all claims asserted in the application in applying the legal sufficiency standard, so long as they are consistent with the claims in the written description. It should be noted that to the extent that it is necessary for an applicant to provide a written description for a novel idea in the written description of his application, the examiner also should consider the claims in the application in applying the legal sufficiency standard, so long as they are consistent with those claims in the written description. My concern with the current system is that the examiner must review all of the claims in the written description of both the application and the application’s written description for legal sufficiency. The ineligibility standard should instead be based upon the written description of the application only. This is in contrast to the current standard, which requires applicants to list all and only the claims in their application. This is a simple rule that should be more readily understood and applied by patent examiners. Since the examiner must consider all of the claims asserted in the application, the patent examiner’s own subjective ineligibility may not adversely affect the patentability of his decisions. Bly, Intellectual Property Law, 3d Ed.
An image processing unit coupled to an analog-to-digital converting circuitry for generating a resultant digital image enhanced with said image.
Article Title: An image processing unit coupled to an analog-to-digital converting circuitry for generating a resultant digital image enhanced with said image | Computer Hardware. Full Article Text: An image processing unit coupled to an analog-to-digital converting circuitry for generating a resultant digital image enhanced with said image. The image processing unit includes a first and second band pass filter for filtering analog image signals into digital image signals, a first and second analog to digital converter for receiving the filtered analog image signals and converting the digital image signals into a digital form, a memory for storing the digital image signals converted by said first and second analog to digital converter, and means for encoding the information contained in the digital image signals onto an information carrier.
Abstract: The present invention relates to an apparatus for and method of processing a moving image signal, comprising: An image processing unit having a first and second band pass filter for filtering analog image signals into digital image signals, a first and second analog to digital converter for receiving the filtered analog image signals and converting the digital image signals into a digital form, a memory for storing the digital image signals converted by said first and second analog to digital converter, and means for encoding the information contained in the digital image signals onto an information carrier.
An apparatus for and method of processing a moving image signal, comprising: An image processing unit having a first and second band pass filter for filtering analog image signals into digital image signals, a first and second analog to digital converter for receiving the filtered analog image signals and converting the digital image signals into a digital form, a memory for storing the digital image signals converted by said first and second analog to digital converter, and means for encoding the information contained in the digital image signals onto an information carrier.
The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the first and second band pass filters are a first band pass filter and a second band pass filter, respectively; and the image processing unit further comprises an image processor for applying at least one of three methods, to the filtered analog image signals, according to at least one of the methods.
Summary determination motion for certain digital video-capable devices and components thereof
In the interest of maximizing the efficiency of the digital video-on-demand service, a method is requested to classify all of the digital video-on-demand players and all of the digital video-on-demand devices. This method is especially important in order to establish standardized and universal methods which facilitate the operation of all of the digital video-on-demand players and all of the digital video-on-demand devices.
The above document also provides an explanation of the DVCS.
Related Posts:
Spread the loveThe Circuit court of appeals found that a digital camera can be an “information” device in certain circumstances, and found that the patent-in-suit was invalid because it did not meet the “information” requirement of 35 U. “Information” is an important term in the patent law. Although the patent in suit failed to meet…