Patent office confirms three claims of Apple’s rubber-banding patent – but not the key one

“Samsung just filed a notice with Judge Koh’s court (Northern District of California) regarding the status of the ongoing reexamination of Apple’s famous rubber-banding (or ‘overscroll bounce’) patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, against which an anonymous party requested an ex parte reexamination,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “In October 2012 the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a first Office action tentatively rejecting all claims of the ‘381 patent — less than two months after a federal jury deemed the patent valid as well as infringed by Samsung. The latest decision, which according to Samsung was published by the patent office ‘on or after March 29,’ is a final Office action — which gives it more weight than the first one, but ‘final’ isn’t really final in this process as I’ll discuss further below.”

“While Apple has made some progress since the first Office action and the USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit has now confirmed claims 14, 17 and 18, the other 17 claims of this patent (1-13, 15, 16, 19, 20) have been rejected once again,” Mueller reports. “The ‘final’ rejection also relates to the claim-in-suit in the ongoing Apple v. Samsung litigation, claim 19.”

Mueller reports, “Apple now has two months (which can be extended) to respond. Again, the word ‘final’ sounds more definitive than this really is. Sometimes the Central Reexamination Unit reconsiders such ‘final’ decisions. Even if it doesn’t, this ‘final’ rejection can and certainly will be appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), sort of an appellate division within the USPTO. The PTAB can make a final decision as far as the USPTO is concerned, but frequently remands a matter to the Central Reexamination Unit. And a final-final USPTO decision can then be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It will take years before a truly final decision on the validity of this patent issues.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Slog, slog, slog and blah, blah, blah, until there is no possibility that “final” justice can ever be truly served.

Related articles:
Samsung is tied to Apple’s coattails and always will be an Apple follower – March 27, 2013
Samsung’s new ‘Wallet’ bears striking resemblance to Apple’s Passbook – February 27, 2013
Korea JoongAng Daily: Samsung must stop slavishly copying Apple – September 3, 2012
South Korea reassesses its great imitator, Samsung – September 2, 2012
Convicted patent infringer Samsung acuses Apple of trying to limit consumer choice – September 1, 2012
Is Samsung copying Apple’s patented earphones? It sure looks like it – September 8, 2012
Samsung mimics Apple product videos in Galaxy S III promo (with video) – August 24, 2012
Now slavish copycat Samsung attempts to knockoff Apple’s retail stores (with video) – August 23, 2012
Samsung: Shameless slavish copiers – August 13, 2012
Apple attorney: Instead of innovating, Samsung chose to copy iPhone and iPad – July 31, 2012
Apple: Google warned Samsung against slavishly copying our products – July 25, 2012
Now Samsung slavishly copies Apple’s Mac mini – June 1, 2012
Samsung Mobile chief ‘designer’ denies that Samsung’s instinct is to slavishly copy Apple – March 23, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung shamelessly steals Apple’s iPhone 3G design – again – January 3, 2012
Slavish copier Samsung uses girl actress from iPhone 4S ad for Galaxy Tab 8.9 spot (with video) – January 2, 2012
Now Samsung’s slavishly copying Apple’s iPad television ads (with videos) – December 30, 2011
Judge: Can you tell me which is iPad and which is yours? Samsung lawyer: ‘Not at this distance your honor’ – October 14, 2011
Why are Apple’s icons on the wall of Samsung’s store? – September 24, 2011
Apple to Samsung: ‘Blatant copying is wrong’ – April 18, 2011
Apple sues Samsung for attempting to copy look and feel of iPhone, iPad – April 18, 2011
Samsung’s ‘Instinct’ is obviously to make Apple iPhone knockoffs – April 1, 2008

6 Comments

  1. When this ultimately obvious truth being distorted and ill conceived by even these so-called departments of justice around the world, it really makes you depressed and feel helpless.

  2. having known this was the eventual process, could Apples aim actually be to simply drain money from Samsung through litigation?
    Apple has the funds to win a “who has the most disposable cash” war.

  3. I read the article and the reason for rejecting the patent are two claims of prior art. One is an Apple patent!!! The other is from AOL and there is no mention in the patent about a rubber banding or over scrolling effect. Complete and utter bullshit!!!

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.