8 ms·
That's a good start, but there's more to claim 1: ...filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is a
by payne92 7y ago
That's a good start, but there's more to claim 1:
...filter the plurality of photographic images using a transfer criteria wherein the transfer criteria is
a subject identification of a respective photographic image within the plurality of photographic images, wherein
the subject identification is based on a topic, theme or individual shown in the respective photographic image;
and transmit, via the wireless transmitter and to a second mobile device, the filtered plurality of photographic images.
Invaliding prior art has to cover every single thing in the claim. (And my hunch is that it's out there).
- amelius 7y agoPerhaps some NASA software does this, considering the cost of sending each and every image?
- colonwqbang 7y agoBased on my understanding, the patent still needs to represent an "inventive step" from the prior art. Let's say you can show that A. Classifying images based on a (pre-existing?) identification; B. Filtering images based on classification; C. Wirelessly transmitting images were all known at the time. Then you could argue that a "person having ordinary skill in the art" would have known to combine A+B+C to solve the problem. Thus the prior art teaches the invention and the patent should be declared invalid.
- pkilgore 7y agoThis isn't wrong. But it's oversimplified and in practice in the US obviousness arguments have a low likelihood of success, lower if it gets too a jury trial. You are much better off defending again infringement suits with novelty arguments.
- GoblinSlayer 7y agoShouldn't infringement match all claims too? SQL did filtering using transfer criteria 45 years ago.