Timeline for Scaling based on pixel density (Microsoft) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2016 at 0:26 | comment | added | Greg Price | Did you know that even a "Final Rejection" from the USPTO is not actually final? In this case, the patent actually ended up being issued, a little over a year after its "Final Rejection". Here it is: google.com/patents/US8933971 The claims have a few more specifics in them, responding to the examiner's reasoning on the original application, but I'm not sure the end result is materially less broad. | |
| Feb 12, 2015 at 19:44 | comment | added | Mike | It's a little over a year later, but have you checked it since? Looks like it's being issued. | |
| Oct 10, 2013 at 21:34 | comment | added | Pete |
I'm not sure if this would apply as prior art, but back in the 90s, Microsoft had the Multi Resolution Bitmap (MRB) graphic file format. It was kind of like a .ico. It basically had multiple resolutions of a .bmps in it, I believe (I don't have my book handy, but it's documented in my book Windows Undocumented File Formats, which is almost as old as MRBs). Anyway, I believe those could be scaled inside of .HLP help files (also documented in my book). So that would have been a good 12-15 years prior to 2008, I bet.
|
|
| Sep 27, 2013 at 20:49 | history | edited | Micah Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 5 characters in body
|
| Sep 27, 2013 at 20:42 | history | edited | Micah Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 282 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2013 at 1:44 | comment | added | Aristotle Pagaltzis | I wanted to read the rejection but it’s fairly cumbersome to get to it and read it via the USPTO interface. So I downloaded and stitched it into a PDF for my own reading. For anyone else who is equally interested, I have uploaded this PDF to gist.github.com/ap/6067449 | |
| Jul 23, 2013 at 22:46 | comment | added | davenpcj | The patent was minorly ammended and resubmitted for consideration on 7/11/2013. I wouldn't consider the amendments to be sufficient, but it's worth remembering that this defeat is not final. | |
| Jul 23, 2013 at 13:50 | comment | added | jefflunt | How is the patent in question fundamentally different than mipmapping? Ref: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mipmap - a technique that I first heard of in games at least in the 90s? | |
| Jul 22, 2013 at 19:06 | comment | added | Wyatt | Looking at their rebuttal they emphasise that theirs disallows scaling: "...avoid the artifacts of scaling by limiting the model to a small, selected set of DPIs. ...the device only requests elements matching one of the small set of selected DPIs." If it comes back around, it may be worth pointing out that KDE has been doing pretty much exactly this via vector icons for years. | |
| Jul 22, 2013 at 16:27 | comment | added | Rian Rizvi | Thanks for the article explaining your process - I've been inspired to join | |
| Mar 28, 2013 at 14:16 | vote | accept | PHOSITA | ||
| Mar 27, 2013 at 19:59 | comment | added | Joel Spolsky | Yes, page 15. I have edited my answer to call this out | |
| Mar 27, 2013 at 19:58 | history | edited | Joel Spolsky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added evidence that this prior art discloses scaling sets (under a different name)
|
| Mar 27, 2013 at 18:58 | comment | added | user3359 | The patent applies a scaling factor picked from a set of factors and picked without regard for the output. So if the DPI of the images is between X and Y it applies a certain scaling factor, if between Y and Z it applies a different one. As best I can see what you cited as been in IE since 2000 - see IE6 (basic zoom function). There are no sets. Is there a page you think discloses scaling sets? | |
| Mar 26, 2013 at 23:08 | history | edited | Micah Siegel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added semi-permanent home for the PDF referred to in this answer.
|
| Mar 26, 2013 at 22:34 | history | answered | Joel Spolsky | CC BY-SA 3.0 |