{"id":17659,"date":"2017-08-03T11:56:46","date_gmt":"2017-08-03T15:56:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/?p=17659"},"modified":"2017-08-03T11:56:46","modified_gmt":"2017-08-03T15:56:46","slug":"stupid-patent-of-the-month-hp-patents-reminder-messages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.megalextoria.com\/wordpress\/index.php\/2017\/08\/03\/stupid-patent-of-the-month-hp-patents-reminder-messages\/","title":{"rendered":"Stupid Patent of the Month: HP Patents Reminder Messages"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

On July 25, 2017, the Patent Office issued a patent to\u00a0HP<\/a>\u00a0on reminder messages. Someone needs to remind the Patent Office to look at the real world before issuing patents.<\/p>\n

United States Patent No. 9,715,680<\/a>\u00a0(the \u2019680 patent) is titled \u201cReminder messages.\u201d While the patent application does suggest some minor tweaks to standard automated reminders, none of these supposed additions deserve patent protection.<\/p>\n

Claim 1 of the patent states (comments in brackets):<\/p>\n

A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor causing the processor to [use a computer to]:<\/p>\n

receive at a first computer system, via a network, event data descriptive of an event to occur at an event time [get event and time information];<\/p>\n

receive via the network, reminder data descriptive of a reminder time to occur on or before the event time [get the reminder time];<\/p>\n

at a time after receipt of the event data, receive via the network article data descriptive of an article to be associated with the event, the article data created during an electronic scanning operation [receive some additional information (created by scanning) relating to the event]; and<\/p>\n

at the reminder time send via the network a reminder message describing the event and the article to a second computer system, for presentation at the second computer system [at the reminder time, send the reminder message].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although this claim uses some obscure language (like \u201cnon-transitory computer-readable storage medium\u201d and \u201carticle data\u201d), it describes a quite mundane process. The \u201carticle data\u201d is simply additional information associated with an event. For example, \u2018buy a cake\u2019 might be included with a birthday reminder. The patent also requires that this extra information be input via a \u201cscanning operation\u201d (e.g. scanning a QR code).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The \u2019680 patent comes from an application filed in July 2012. It is supposed to represent a non-obvious advance on technology that existed before that date. Of course, reminder messages were standard many years before the application was filed. And just a few minutes of research reveals that QR codes were already used to encode information for reminder messages. For example,\u00a0QRickit<\/a>\u00a0suggested using QR codes for calendar events and reminders (with the option of adding additional information beyond the event descriptor). This\u00a02011 article<\/a>\u00a0suggests using QR codes to embed information such as \u201cassignments for the week.\u201d The only even arguable difference from the prior art is that the patent\u2019s claims require the \u201carticle data\u201d to be received\u00a0after<\/i>\u00a0the event data. In our view, that is not a distinction that warrants the government-granted monopoly power inherent in a patent.<\/p>\n

The Patent Office reviewed HP\u2019s application for years without ever considering any real-world products. Indeed, the examiner considered only patents and patent applications. We have\u00a0complained before<\/a>\u00a0that the Patent Office seems to operate in an alternative universe where only patents provide evidence of the state of the art in software. The fact that the Patent Office doesn\u2019t take developments in real software into account in its assessment of prior art speaks poorly for its ability to determine whether patent applications actually reflect new inventions.<\/p>\n

In addition to failing to consider real products, the Patent Office gives little weight to common sense and takes an\u00a0extremely rigid approach<\/a>\u00a0to evaluating whether or not a patent application is obvious. This leads to patents on things like\u00a0taking photos against a white background<\/a>,\u00a0filming a yoga class<\/a>,\u00a0voting for a favorite photo<\/a>, and\u00a0out-of-office email<\/a>. Much of the responsibility for this mess rests with the\u00a0Federal Circuit<\/a>, which has failed to apply a Supreme Court case called\u00a0KSR v. Teleflex<\/i><\/a>\u00a0<\/i>that calls for a flexible, common sense approach to obviousness. Together with\u00a0Public Knowledge<\/a>, EFF recently filed an\u00a0amicus brief [PDF<\/a>] asking the Supreme Court to consider the obviousness standard in patent law and to reaffirm that examiners can reject common sense combinations of known elements.<\/i><\/p>\n

Even leaving obviousness aside, HP\u2019s patent application still should have been rejected under\u00a0Alice v. CLS Bank<\/i><\/a>.\u00a0<\/i>In\u00a0Alice<\/i>, the Supreme Court ruled that an abstract idea does not become eligible for a patent simply by being implemented on a generic computer. As with many software patents, the patent goes out of its way to explain that its method can be implemented on a generic computer, or, as the patent puts it \u201cgenerally any computer.\u201d Despite this, the prosecution history [PDF<\/a>] reveals that the examiner never even mentioned\u00a0Alice<\/i>, even in office actions written well after the Supreme Court\u2019s decision came down. We have written many times\u00a0(e.g<\/i>.\u00a01<\/a>,\u00a02<\/a>,\u00a03<\/a>, and\u00a04<\/a>) to protest that the Patent Office is not doing enough to diligently apply the\u00a0Alice\u00a0<\/i>decision. The \u2019680 patent provides yet another example of abstract software patents being issued despite the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n

In case you want to set a reminder, the \u2019680 patent will expire on December 16, 2035.<\/p>\n

Source: Stupid Patent of the Month: HP Patents Reminder Messages | Electronic Frontier Foundation<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n