Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Patents is a question and answer site for people interested in improving and participating in the patent system. It's 100% free, no registration required.

About Patent US6513002: Rule-based number formatter

It seems to me that many computer textbooks published before 1990 have include exercises about how to write a simple number translation program. I don't think this patent about a number translator is valid, since programs like these have been mentioned in a number of computer programming textbooks.

Does anyone have any specific examples of prior art for US6513002?

share|improve this question
    
Hi Leo, can you please specify whether you are looking for specific examples of prior art, or are simply asking whether prior art from 1990 might be valid? Thanks! –  SamtheBrand Nov 9 '12 at 17:49
    
Filing date is 1998. Why look for prior before 1990? –  Dr. Stephen Falken Nov 11 '12 at 22:39

2 Answers 2

To the exact question - it is not valid and in force. IBM did not pay the maintance fee due in 2006 and it went abandoned in 2007. I looked it up in Lexis Total Patents. You can use the USPTO maintenance fee shopping window https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do or PAIR. PAIR has a captcha wall.

share|improve this answer

As a programmer, this patent seems to be meaningless. All it appears to do is take a spoken number and translates it into a numeric representation. This seems like what many voice-recognition gadgets already do, especially cell-phones. Plus, besides the initial voice input, the rest is a simple, common algorithm.

share|improve this answer
    
Can you cite a program or device that performs the functions described in the claims, or a publication that describes them, dating from before February 1997? That's what prior art means, and the question is even more specific. Claim 1 does seem to me to be have been obvious then, but some of the other claims are more substantial. –  Gilles Nov 9 '12 at 21:41
    
I think your interpretation of the patent is incorrect. To me it appears to simply concern a method for taking a numerical value ("115") and converting it into a text string ("one hundred fifteen"). Everything based on "rules", which get "identified", of course. Another USPTO joke, if you ask me. –  Dr. Stephen Falken Nov 11 '12 at 22:42

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.