This patent utilizes the most common portrait lens, the 85mm, on a lighting setup that has been in common use for decades. This would only make sense to someone who knows nothing about commercial photography. I see it was filed in 2011 so it isn't like they were short on time to do a thorough review. There is nothing new or novel about this procedure.
This patent may be specific, but certainly not novel. See Avedon, or any product photo in recent years. This is a great example of the system off its rails restraining innovation, and this is from someone who love Amazon.
As far as prior art, here is a post from 2007 describing this as a "classic method".
The specifics of the settings are built in settings on the camera and that is probably the most commonly used portrait lens so nothing is being invented.
To put it another way, this would be like ...
Also, I don't think that specific prior art is the issue here. Given the problem this is solving, a person skilled in the art would have come to this solution. Therefore, it is not an invention. There is no inventive step, only application of the art.
The Wikipedia page says:
"Further, the combination of previously known elements can be considered obvious. ...
I'm no expert on patent law, but I don't think their claims are very specific at all. From the patent: "It is to be understood that the numerical data is presented herein and used for convenience and brevity, and thus, should be interpreted in a flexible manner to include not only the numerical values explicitly recited as the only workable parameters, but ...
"If you go to Amazon's own pages, go to books, then put in "studio photography" you will
turn up dozens of books in which this very approach is detailed...it has been done this way
as long as camera has existed."
my dad, a professional photographer who for 40+ years.
Anyone shooting with Tri-X Pan Professional (roll or sheet film), would have used ISO 320 film. And maybe ISO 400 is "about" 320.
85mm is a good focal length for upper body portraits using 35mm film and is recommended by lots of people.
For years, Kodak published a detailed book on portrait lighting setups. I'm not finding a good reference right now, but ...
Longtime Amazon employee here: I don't recall when Amazon started awarding puzzle pieces, but it was sometime before 2008. Audible (an Amazon company) has a writeup of the practice: http://stn.audible.com/patents/
In short, the pieces are transparent Lucite, about 4" square and 1" thick, with tabs & slots that fit with other identical pieces. A Google ...
Suppose A company, say ABC makes a product - a shelf that detects the item taken from it, along with the person who did, using image processing. The same company makes a product that does checkout automatically from the above data. And a retailer UVW buys the two products and integrates into his shop.
Will company ABC be sued? Or will the retailer get ...
Yes, it's a granted patent. The patent has after its number the code "B1", which means that it is a granted patent that was never published as an application.
That's a little unusual, as most granted patent publications these days are code "B2". But the applicant requested that the patent application not be published after 18 months, so there was no ...
The patent document you are referring to seems to be a pre-grant publication of an application for a Chinese Utility model. CN202723661 U. I do not see a corresponding U.S. patent. Even if it were a granted patent in China that would not affect anything in the U.S. Maybe the company in China is selling it to many branded distributors in the U.S.