kinkfisher

Unregistered less info
674 reputation
15
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 7 months
seen Jul 29 '13 at 7:11

Sep
25
awarded  Yearling
Jul
13
comment Would this patent application cover all location aware games?
To be pedantic, the independent claims -- although vague about what "location" means in different contexts -- are specific in that they require a second user being able to view the gameplay. Also, the requirement of timing to establish a "cadence of play" probably means non-real time and turn-based games are not covered.
Jun
30
revised Protecting a User Interface: Design Patent and/or Copyright
added 101 characters in body
Jun
30
answered Protecting a User Interface: Design Patent and/or Copyright
Jun
17
awarded  Revival
Jun
16
answered CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Uniloc) Personal Control of Personal Information
Jun
16
answered What parts of Bouncy Castle are affected by patents?
Jun
16
revised INDICATING LOCATION STATUS Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST
Better explained the cited reference.
Jun
16
answered INDICATING LOCATION STATUS Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST
May
28
answered Is there ex parte reexamination statistics narrowed to software patents only?
May
28
answered Electronic Collections - Searching, identifying and displaying items in a collection - Issued Patent - PRIOR ART REQUEST
May
17
answered Which patent claims did George Selden believe Henry Ford violated?
May
7
revised Prior Art for a Database of Geographic Locations
Missed a word.
Apr
27
answered Prior Art for a Database of Geographic Locations
Apr
23
revised General knowledge on how software patent-infringement lawsuits are evaluated
Added note about SEO as an example of reverse-engineering algorithms hidden behind a service.
Apr
22
revised General knowledge on how software patent-infringement lawsuits are evaluated
added 26 characters in body
Apr
22
answered General knowledge on how software patent-infringement lawsuits are evaluated
Mar
22
comment CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Twitter) “Device independent message distribution platform” (8401009)
As an aside, the multi-server vs server difference is not important, because multiple machines are still involved: the implicitly mentioned server / "computer processor", the "first user's" and the "second user's" devices. It doesn't really matter if they are servers or smartphones because they're all simply "computing devices", so in that sense, Miski does not differ significantly. The client vs. server distinction might only matter in Miski when it comes to re-posting, which these claims do not address anyway. The difference in delivery methods is also not relevant.
Mar
22
comment CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Twitter) “Device independent message distribution platform” (8401009)
Ah, I see, users subscribe to a combination of user + subject. That certainly is more Twitter-like, though it is still not exactly the same (i.e. requiring the creation of a "*" subject). Again, seems pedantic, but really, even tiny differences matter in interpreting claims. If the writeup had explicitly mentioned this possibility, it would make a stronger case for obviousness. However, from a quick trip to USPTO PAIR, it seems the followed/follower mechanic elements were what finally differentiated the claim from all the prior art, so Miski might yet prove to be very relevant.
Mar
22
answered CALL FOR PRIOR ART: (Twitter) “Device independent message distribution platform” (8401009)