15 Dec
2004
15 Dec
'04
7:04 a.m.
Actually, the patent is not on graph-traversal as
such, but on graph-
traversal in context with virtual instrumentation having some kind of
adjustable front-panel on screen ... It is a "methods" patent that only
applies when all the ingredients are in place. The prior art shown in
court was overturned in part because it did not use windows and mouse.
At the beginning I thought that Mathworks didn't tried to claim priort art, and as you
say I read with surprise that they actually did: pages 8-10 of this pdf [1] (which I think
is an overview of the trial process, found here [2] ) They showed two systems Sutherland
and MATRIX (I know nothing about them).
[1] http://cafc.bna.com/03-1540.pdf
[2] http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2004/09/federal_circuit.html
Probably Mathworks did a poor job finding examples of prior art, and they concentrated too
much on defending they where not infringing the patent. Anyway, I find this case very sad.
Hopefully --like Erik said before-- this is a step towards the colapse of the US patents
system...
Pau ArumÃ
http://www.iua.upf.es/mtg/clam