ahlam1399
08-18-2015, 08:41 AM
http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2015/08/Screen-Shot-2015-08-17-at-11.37.33-PM.png
FOSS Patents (http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-******-considers-apples-d677.html) reported tonight that the Central Reexamination Division of the United States Patent and Trademark ****** has reexamined one of the key iPhone design patents in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/). The validity of one of the patents (618,677 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D618,677.PN.&OS=PN/D618,677&RS=PN/D618,677)) has received a **n-final rejection: The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for **w) that this patent "is **t entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was **t disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible **w, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.Apple was originally awarded over $1 billion (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/) from the original lawsuit, but that amount has been reduced (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/18/apple-samsung-damages-appeal/) substantially to about $548 million in damages. Aside from this particular design patent, Apple still has other claims that have **t been reduced or invalidated from the previous decision.
Samsung was most recently (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/13/court-rejects-samsung-appeal/) denied their latest appeal attempt, leaving them with the only option of turning to the U.S. Supreme Court. It appears this invalidation has ** direct impact on the current standing of the lawsuit, but may help Samsung in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/1/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/1/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/2/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/2/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/3/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/3/rc.htm)
http://da.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2.img (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2.htm)
http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/ach.img (http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/ach.htm)http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2t.imghttp://pi2.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2t2.imghttp://rss.feedsportal.com/c/35070/f/648326/s/49112b3c/sc/15/mf.gifhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=yIl2AUoC8zA (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=EeJ0Ys-_Iw4:rjTcoqGcwec:yIl2AUoC8zA) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=6W8y8wAjSf4 (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=EeJ0Ys-_Iw4:rjTcoqGcwec:6W8y8wAjSf4)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MacRumors-All/~4/EeJ0Ys-_Iw4
أكثر... (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/17/uspto-invalidates-patent/)
FOSS Patents (http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-******-considers-apples-d677.html) reported tonight that the Central Reexamination Division of the United States Patent and Trademark ****** has reexamined one of the key iPhone design patents in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/). The validity of one of the patents (618,677 (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=D618,677.PN.&OS=PN/D618,677&RS=PN/D618,677)) has received a **n-final rejection: The problem the D'677 patent faces here is that the USPTO has determined (for **w) that this patent "is **t entitled to benefit of the filing date" of two previous Apple design patent applications because the design at issue was **t disclosed in those earlier applications. As a result, certain prior art is eligible **w, and against the background of that additional prior art, the USPTO believes the patent shouldn't have been granted.Apple was originally awarded over $1 billion (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/24/jury-reaches-verdict-in-apple-vs-samsung-trial/) from the original lawsuit, but that amount has been reduced (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/05/18/apple-samsung-damages-appeal/) substantially to about $548 million in damages. Aside from this particular design patent, Apple still has other claims that have **t been reduced or invalidated from the previous decision.
Samsung was most recently (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/13/court-rejects-samsung-appeal/) denied their latest appeal attempt, leaving them with the only option of turning to the U.S. Supreme Court. It appears this invalidation has ** direct impact on the current standing of the lawsuit, but may help Samsung in their appeal to the Supreme Court.
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/1/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/1/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/2/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/2/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/3/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/rc/3/rc.htm)
http://da.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2.img (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2.htm)
http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/ach.img (http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/ach.htm)http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2t.imghttp://pi2.feedsportal.com/r/234567335580/u/49/f/648326/c/35070/s/49112b3c/sc/15/a2t2.imghttp://rss.feedsportal.com/c/35070/f/648326/s/49112b3c/sc/15/mf.gifhttp://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=yIl2AUoC8zA (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=EeJ0Ys-_Iw4:rjTcoqGcwec:yIl2AUoC8zA) http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?d=6W8y8wAjSf4 (http://feeds.macrumors.com/~ff/MacRumors-All?a=EeJ0Ys-_Iw4:rjTcoqGcwec:6W8y8wAjSf4)
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MacRumors-All/~4/EeJ0Ys-_Iw4
أكثر... (http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/17/uspto-invalidates-patent/)