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.

This patent cites Knuth-Plass as a prior art, but doesn't seem to specify how it varies. It must do since this patent was approved, but what is the difference? Is is a difference in implementation only or is is a bigger difference that affects the outcome?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This method looks at a moving window of lines rather than requiring the entire paragraph to be considered as a whole.

The background says:

As discussed in Donald E. Knuth and Michael F. Plass's article entitled “Breaking Paragraph Into Lines,” Software-Practice and Experience, Vol II, pp. 1119-1184 (1981), optimal line breaks may be selected by considering all feasible line breaks for one paragraph. The articles describes a method that evaluates all combinations of line breaks for a given paragraph and selects an optimal set of line breaks for the paragraph. This method was designed to operate in a batch-processing environment on a mainframe or minicomputer and not in an interactive environment of modem personal computers.

In the summary of their invention the applicants say:

Among the advantages of the invention are the following. The invention determines optimal line breaks in a paragraph by considering feasible line breaks for a portion of the paragraph covering multiple lines. The invention requires less memory space and processing time even for a long paragraph because only a portion of the paragraph at a time is analyzed to determine optimal line breaks. This is particularly important when processing a long paragraph since possible combinations of line breaks grow exponentially for a linear increase of feasible line breaks. The invention therefore is advantageous in a real-time editing environment with memory, processing resource and time constraints.

For patentability of a method, the actual claimed steps would be looked at for novelty and non-obviousness. The end result being the same or different than a known method is not directly relevant. Also, there is a usefulness requirement to get a patent. Useful does not mean better, just useful.

In this case the inventors do think they have a better method in terms of memory usage and execution time.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.