Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Upside down could mean wrong sheet face up (Score 1) 427

by villindesign (#31022448) Attached to: USPTO Won't Accept Upside Down Faxes
Since the submission consist of multiple pages (oath, spec, drawings, claims, etc.), the explanation that "upside down" means that some of the pages were faxed so that the back of the page was transmitted is most likely. If the transmission was missing essential information to receive a filing date, then it makes sense that the USPTO would be unable to continue processing the application. See http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_601_01_d.htm

Comment: Re:CDE? (Score 2, Insightful) 580

by villindesign (#25300623) Attached to: Steve Jobs Patents "The Dock"
It does not matter what limitations a dependent claim (like claim 120) contains. The independent claims are the claims that have the "allowable" subject matter. Claim 120 depends from claim 114 which contains the limitations: "A method for displaying representations of objects in a graphical user interface for a computer system, comprising the steps of: displaying a plurality of icons in a row, where each icon represents an object in the computer system; displaying a movable cursor via which the user can select individual ones of said icons; magnifying the size of at least one of said icons as said cursor is moved into the vicinity of said one icon; and repositioning others of the icons along said row to accommodate the magnified size of said one icon." All the limitations in claim 114 were considered allowable over the prior art; claim 120 has nothing to do with the allowability of the application.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.

Working...