Tablet PCs (the anonymous fax)

December 6, 2004 on 1:38 pm | In Interesting Patents |

Occasionally, I get anonymous faxes.  Some of them are junk…some are "interesting."  Here is the latest:

In the US 5,495,581 patent you mentioned, someone caught notice of two figures and the discussion in the text accompanying them (excerpted below):

–Begin excerpt–

FIG. 51 illustrates an example of a cradle C into which a fax tablet 1000 may be placed.  The cradle C may provide many or all of the electrical connections between the tablet 1000 and the outside environment.  For example, the cradle C may include a phone connector for connecting the fax tablet 1000 to a phone line.  The cradle C may include a computer connector for connecting the tablet 1000 with a computer or computer printer.  The cradle C may also include a power supply for powering and/or charging the tablet 1000.

FIG. 52 illustrates an example of a cradle C equipped with a video camera VC which enables the fax tablet 1000 docked in the cradle to send, receive and display video images.

–End excerpt–

The filing date of that reference is indicated on the first page of the document as October 15, 1993.

"Docking cradle"?  Just when did the term "docking cradle" enter the vernacular, as well as the design of them which we are all so familiar with today in 2004?  Doesn’t 2003 [1993??] pre-date Palm Pilots, Handsprings, etc.?  Does this mean that any design patents on those structures now need to be re-visited by those [whom] examine them?

Also included was the drawing page for Fig. 51 from the ‘581 patent and a printout from PalmOne’s site showing a PalmPilot cradle.

>Does this mean that any design patents on those structures now need to be re-visited by those [whom] examine them?

Such a senior patent (’581) (which may or may not have been looked at during prosecution of the junior patent(s)) may bear on whether an invention was anticipated or obvious in hindsight.  However, unless the USPTO really messed up…they aren’t likely to reexamine the hypothetical junior patent.  Of course, this prior art would be useful to anyone being sued on such a junior patent (for the purpose of helping in the task of invalidating the junior patent).  I think that probably answers your question.  In summary "it depends." 

 Print This Post |  Email This Post | | Subscribe via e-mail

Related Posts:

• If you can’t beat them…part II
• Apple patent in the Spotlight
• Apple patents or Microsoft patents….which are more interesting?