The patent in question is U.S.
Patent No. 8,049,729: “Easily deployable interactive direct-pointing system and
presentation control system and calibration method therefor”
This patent was at the heart of
the Federal Circuit case between UltimatePointer and Nintendo that I discussed
last week. In this post, I will examine the claims in greater detail.
The first part of the first claim
reads as follows:
1. An apparatus for controlling a feature on a computer generated
image, the apparatus comprising:
This first phrase of the first
claim specifies that an apparatus directly controls a particular feature on
some kind of image. Connecting this to a real-life application, the apparatus
is the Wii remote, which directly controls the cursor on a screen within a Wii
application.
a handheld device including:
an image sensor, said image sensor
generating data related to the distance between a first point and a second point, the first
point having a predetermined relation to the
computer generated image and the second point having a predetermined relation to
a handheld enclosure; and
This part of the claim describes
the image sensor that incorporates data regarding the distance between one
point on the screen and the other point at the edge of the handheld device.
a processor coupled to said handheld device
to receive said generated data related to the distance
between a first point and a second point and programmed to use the distance between the first point and the second point to
control the feature on the image.
This final part of the claim
shows that the handheld device takes data received by the processor with
regards to the distance between the first point and the second point described
earlier. As a result of this data available, the handheld device can control
the feature on the image.
Claims two through four describe
apparatus derived from the original claim 1 that talk in greater detail about
the individual components of the direct-pointing system, including the
processor, the image sensor, and calibration points.
Claims five through eight
describe further descriptions of the handheld device apparatus, specifically
regarding the image sensor, processor, and zoom levels. Claims nine through
fourteen specify the particular methods that would allow the handheld device
apparatus to control the feature on a computer generated image.
Hi Jay,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading about your claim analysis for this case. Specifically, the two summaries in the final paragraph regarding the image sensor, processor and zoom levels as you mention. I am curious to know if there were any images or diagrams listed in the patent to further assist in the explaining this claim? Otherwise, great post!
Hey Jay,
ReplyDeleteIts awesome that you chose to analyze the specific patent relevant to the case you talked about last week. Your analysis of the different components of the patent was great, specifically when you clarified the handheld device's function as collecting data from the processor. However, I feel like the claim analysis could be better organized by breaking it down into clear points i.e. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. Anyway, this was still a very helpful post!
Jay,
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good, detailed summary of US Patent No. 8,049,729, where you spoke on a claim you previously wrote about and is probability the best way to become more familiar with a case that you already have introductory knowledge about. As for criticism, perhaps there could be more detail about each specific claim and its relevance, however your summary strong. Thanks