[A2k] Fw: PATNEWS: Apple jury's foreman's patent is crap - his guidance, bias

James Love james.love at keionline.org
Wed Aug 29 14:03:44 PDT 2012

James.Love at KEIonline.org, http://www.keionline.org
Work +1.202.332.2670, US Mobile +1.202.361.3040
Geneva Mobile +41.76.413.6584

-----Original Message-----
From: patnews at ns1.patenting-art.com
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:35:01 
Subject: PATNEWS: Apple jury's foreman's patent is crap - his guidance, bias

!20120829  Apple jury's foreman's patent is crap - his guidance, bias

The jury foreman in the Apple/Samsung case is all in the news, taking
his delusions of grandeur and becoming an champion of innovation,
preventing the virtuous (Apple) from the theiving bastards (Samsung).

His sole credibility of being an expert in patenting and prior art is
that he is the inventor on a patent that he long struggled to get
issued from the PTO.  So he knows how the patent system works, the
importance of prior art, blah blah blah boulshirt.  Excuse me a few
seconds while I hug a toilet.

I THINK NOT.  His patent is a piece of crap that barely cites any
prior art, a pro-se piece for shite that qualifies him for nothing
of expertise in the patent world.  I can't believe the press, which
endlessly cites his patent, hasn't taken a look at it.  It's barf.
And based on this piece of crap, I strongly believed he introduced
significant bias into the jury proceedings.  An issue Samsung should
raise in its appeal.  Juries shouldn't be biased by the nonsense
expertise of a jury foreman.

The patent:

    Method and apparatus for recording and storing video information
    U.S. Patent 7,352,953
        Velvin Hogan, San Jose,CA
    Priority - 6 March 2001 provisional

First reason the patent is most likely invalid.  The patent cites 4 prior
U.S. patents and NO NO NO NO NO non-patent prior art.  Hogan holds
patent quality in as much contempt as his snide accusations against
Samsung.  For anyone in Silicon Valley to submit an electronics patent
that cites no non-patent prior art is to a priori require the patent
to be served its First, Second and Final Office Action rejections all
at once.

And what is great invention, what problem is he solving?  From the

    Personal video recording and storage systems are known in the art.
    Such systems typically download streaming video to an internal
    fixed disk drive, ...


    One preferred embodiment of the invention offers the ability to
    offload [downloaded] videos (e.g., originally stored in a fixed
    storage device) to an internal removable media storage device.

That's right - his invention is nothing more trivial, utterly obvious,
non-inventive-step-ish than a DVR with a removable disk.  And this guy
claims to be a technological whiz?  Yeah, maybe a technological
cheeze whiz.

And where is the freakin Patent Office on obviousness?  All the inventive
step is:

	DVR with a   fixed   disk drive
	DVR with a removable disk drive

And not even, since all "fixed" disk drives are just removable disk drives
that are hard to remove (screws, clamps, etc.).  So the inventive step
reduces to:

	DVR with a  hard  to remove removable disk drive
	DVR with a easier to remove removable disk drive

Or lets have more fun:

	VCR with a removable magnetic tape storage device
	DVR with a removable   disk drive  storage device

But who cares about obviousness attacks?  Obviousness attacks are for
wimps.  Let's go for the 102-kill

      Stored program pay-per-play
      U.S. Patent 5,619,247
      Smart VCR Ltd (issued April 1997)

From the abstract:

     "A stored program pay-per-play system includes a high-capacity
     storage medium facilitating compilation of video, audio or other
     programs at a subscriber's site. While the recording of such
     programs may take place at any time preceding playback, ..."

So we clearly have the personal video recorder in the prior art that Hogan 

From the Detailed Description:

     "While a magnetic drive is preferable from the standpoint of
     relatively low cost-per-bit and compatibility with random-access
     read/write operations, other forms of high capacity storage media
     are equally applicable, including magneto-optical and purely optical
     forms, such as emerging read/write compact-disk read-only memories
     (CD-ROMs), and semiconductor modules.

     The use of a removable [REMOVABLE REMOBVABLE] medium such as a
     CD-ROM further permits the ability to receive program material
     in a physically removable form as well as or in addition to an
     electronic transfer."

Or, as Hogan writes, at the end of claim 1 of his patent:

     "an internal removable media storage device operatively coupled
     to the system controller module, wherein the internal removable
     media storage device is configured to store the one or more 
     video files from the system controller module or the internal
     fixed storage device."

The patent is a piece of crap.  And any "expertise" Mr. Hogan claims
to have with regards to technology or patent quality is underfounded,
suggesting his "guidance" to the Apple/Samsung jury was biased and
introduction of false information.

I sincerely hope that Samsung attacks Mr. Hogan's credibililty, and his
comments about teaching and guiding the rest of the jury about the
patent system, patent quality and prior art.

Because, based on his patent, Mr. Hogan's knowledge is nonsense.

Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
Call for patentability/invalidity/opposition/clearance search services 
    for infotech/commtech/medtech/greentech/business methods
In the United States, call me at:   001-415-981-0441
In Brazili (Leao IP), call me at:   011-55-51-3022-5175

Client of Article One?  Whatever they overcharge you over $6000 for an
invalidity search, I will give you a 20% discount - no questions asked.
Article One charging you $25,000?  I will do it for $10,000.  All of 
my searches are flat fee. Email me the special URL - get a bigger discount.


More information about the A2k mailing list