theodp wrote:
theodp writes "As if there weren't enough dodgy patents, here's an
excerpt from one granted to Microsoft Tuesday for a 'Method and
apparatus for displaying information regarding stored data in a gaming
system': 'When saving a game, the saved game data may include a
descriptive name of the saved game, a graphic representation of the
state of the game when the game was saved, a description of the game
state when the game was saved, and a date and time that the game was
saved.'" I'm trying to figure out if there's more to this patent, but
the more I read, the worse it seems. How is this possibly
"non-obvious"?
--> Link to Patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...mber=6,716,102
--> Link to Patent File History (Shows Two Earlier Rejections)
http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/...mber=6,716,102
Well, it is (IMHO) even a bit dodgier than from the abstract.
The first claim reads:
1. A game console, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-removable hard disk drive coupled to the processor, the hard disk
drive including a first subdirectory configured to store data associated
with a first application, and the hard disk drive including a second
subdirectory configured to store data associated with a second application.
At one level, you have a game machine with a hard drive. At another,
you could argue that it applies to general purpose computers being
used (sometimes?) as a gaming console. The detailed description
has the game console hooked to a display and controller(s), connected
via for example USB or wireless. There is little in the console
that would differenciate it from a general purpose computer.
It uses preferably industry standard busses (ISA, MCA, EISA, VESA,
PCI), has a two level cache with DDR SDRAM, etc. It preferably
has a 3D graphics processing unit, etc.
The problem here is that general purpose computers have been used
as "game consoles" for years, with almost identical hardware
configurations. Gaming controls have been in use with them for
years too. I remember using a flight simulator controller at
least a decade ago - and I am not a gamer. Add to this that
different games would logically store their own data in their
own subdirectories (arguably "conguratio n").
One of the things that condemns the patent to me are claims 2 and 11,
which add the restriction that the first application is a game.
This implies (since dependent claims must narrow) that applications
need not be games.
The detailed description talks about different types of data in
different regions of a disk - such as settings versus user data.
It talks about placing settings in a part of the disk only
accessably via API (note - ever hear of the Registry? I know
that MSFT is a big company, but come on). Some hardware games
here are mentioned, but then negated, as it is then generalized.
Arguably, the "configure" could refer to OS or firmware implemented
restrictions limiting a given application to a given subdirectory.
But note that even though at one point, different applications are
limited to different areas of the disk, this is negated as far as
the claims are concerned when generalized and mention is made that
this may result in running out of room in one area while there is
room elsewhere on the disk (shades of IBM mainframe architectures).
It is also somewhat negated when it is noted that some applications
could access (delete) data from multiple subdirectories.
All in all, a patent in which at least some, if not most, of the
claims should have been rejected (IMHO) due to either lack of
novelty, or more likely, obviousness. IMHO, every time I saw
something that I thought could be novel and nonobvious, it was
broadened into something that wasn't. I think that if they had
concentrated on what probably was novel and nonobvious, and
hadn't gotten greedy (through their broadening), a decent patent
might have resulted.
It should be noted that though I read the patent, that I did not do
more than peruse the list of actions in the prosecution history.
In order to truly determine the scope of the patent, it would be
necessary to review the actual documentation in that history,
most notably the contents of the office actions and their responses.
For example, during prosecution, it is possible that
MSFT made admissions therein that might have limited the meaning
of terms in the patent to the extent that a truly novel and
nonobvious invention was ultimately patented.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 2004 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden
bh*****@ieee.or g
Dillon, Colorado
bh*****@highdow n.com
Phoenix, Arizona
bh*****@copatla w.com 
