1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

TiVo vs. Dish: TiVo won appeal

Discussion in 'General DISH™ Discussion' started by Curtis52, Mar 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apr 27, 2010 #841 of 1017
    deaincaelo

    deaincaelo AllStar

    70
    0
    Feb 5, 2009
    I'm definitely not a lawyer, just a geek and a critic of the USPTO. I'm definitely a little scared that they seem to be allowing overly broad patents to encompass ideas that are clearly and rightfully in the public domain. Tivo seems to have a patent that encompasses any form of recording tv, although that ought to be clearly wrong. If there are meaningful limits to Tivo's patent It would take someone much better versed than myself (maybe someone who can find the markman hearings) to find it.

    I'll still say the 510 is just a VCR with a satellite tuner and a hard drive though.
     
  2. Apr 27, 2010 #842 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I agree with your comment on the USPTO, however as pointed out several times before, E* cannot just blame the others. They screwed up on many occasions too, to the point that I began to think maybe Charlie wanted to fail. Hopefully in the latest motions and filings they had pointed out the fact not only the PTO had invalidated the software claims, the only claims E* ever was found to infringe, but more importantly, TiVo had conceded that the software claims are invalid, proposed the new claims to take their place.

    If E* continued to fail to make such argument, then it is their own fault, they deserve the repeated defeat. Frankly I don't even care what E* is saying anymore, just wait to see what happens.
     
  3. Apr 27, 2010 #843 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    TiVo did not patent recording TV. TiVo patented a method of DVR trick play... all the things you can do to "live TV" on a DVR while other shows are recording. What makes TiVo's patent valuable is that it patents the optimization of recording and playback during the trick play process.
     
  4. Apr 27, 2010 #844 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    You have been disproven by everyone here on this point including a Mod. Why do you continue to state something as fact when it clearly is not? TiVo conceded absolutely nothing on the software claims and that is 100% truth.
     
  5. Apr 27, 2010 #845 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Please speak for yourself, not the others.

    TiVo said clearly in its amendment that should the PTO found the two software claims "unpatentable" TiVo proposed that the PTO certified the 8 new claims instead. What that means is, should the PTO again invalidate the two software claims, but nevertheless agrees with TiVo to certify the 8 new claims, the two software claims will be offcially gone, no more.

    Again you can disagree with me, just don't pretend that everyone else does too. If someone else disagrees, he can feel free to dispute my above statement. Just don't speak for him, only yourself.

    So far I have not heard anyone else disputing my above statement, only you.
     
  6. Apr 27, 2010 #846 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010

    Are you serious? Please tell me that you are joking. There was a whole page of people trying to explain dependent claims and what they were. Now you are revisiting the issue like that discussion never happened.

    Are you delusional or just trying to cause trouble?
     
  7. Apr 27, 2010 #847 of 1017
    scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,300
    33
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    Why don't you ask that question of yourself first ?

    If those last two claims are rejected - there is no more '389 patent that can be used against Echostar / Dish et al. Tivo cannot arbitrarily add the additional claims and then go after Echostar with them - it will have to be an entire new court action - from the beginning.
     
  8. Apr 27, 2010 #848 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    Maybe you are, you know thinking those whole pages of people when it was just yourself:)

    The dependent claims proposed by TiVo are dependent on the two software claims only if the software claims are reinstated, if the software claims are invalidated, the 8 new claims will no longer be dependent claims of the two software claims.

    What TiVo proposed is, in such case, the PTO nevertheless certifies those 8 new claims, presumably they will then be dependent on the two hardware claims instead, since the hardware claims disclose such "transform objects" too you know.

    But the bottomline is, if the PTO does what TiVo proposed it to do, the two software claims will be gone, no more, non-existent. In other words this whole case will be over.

    Alternatively you can say, if TiVo is proposing the 8 dependent claims in an effort to overcome the rejection of the two software claims, then if such attempt should succeed, it will be because the 8 new claims serve to narrow the two software claims, such as restricting them to only those DVRs that have at least two independent external outputs. In such case all E*'s 5XX DVRs will be off the hook. Therefore should the court approves the new design for implementation for the 625s, this case is also over.

    Pick your poison.
     
  9. Apr 27, 2010 #849 of 1017
    Greg Bimson

    Greg Bimson Hall Of Fame

    3,918
    0
    May 5, 2003
    Which is it? Those two statements are mutally exclusive. Only one can be true.

    TiVo didn't concede anything. And even if the PTO finds the two software claims unpatentable, TiVo can stil appeal to the courts and hold this up for years to come.
    Completely correct.

    But any action like that is entirely a long way out.
     
  10. Apr 27, 2010 #850 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    One is a dramatized version of the other:) Of course TiVo will not concede that the claims 31 and 61 will be invalidated by the PTO, but the fact TiVo proposes that in that event, TiVo asks the PTO to certify the 8 new claims, is an admission that TiVo does not intend to try to rescue the two software claims, if the PTO invalidates them. As such you can say TiVo has resigned to the possibility (conceded) that the two software claims may be gone for good.

    Not if the PTO does what TiVo proposed it to do, that is, finds the two software claims unpatentable, but nevertheless certifies the 8 new claims to replace them.

    As said above, if the PTO does that, the software claims will be gone for good, TiVo will not appeal, because this is what an amendment is about, a proposal to overcome the rejection by prior art is all about.

    Do not propose any amendment, but if you do, you automatically give up some things.
     
  11. Apr 27, 2010 #851 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    Why don't you ask yourself the question?

    I think we've already established the fact that TiVo didn't concede anything 4 pages ago. Greg, Curtis, James, myself, all tried to explain that the original claims were not amended.

    Yet jacmyoung in his own words "dramatized" the facts... in other words TiVo didn't concede anything but jacmyoung felt the need to say they did.
     
  12. Apr 27, 2010 #852 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    I don't care who concluded that, it cannot happen, not in a reexamination when the issue is the rejection of certain claims by prior art.

    There is no such thing that the patent owner may use such reexamination opportunity to turn the reexamination into an advantage. Stop thinking it that way, it does not happen.

    The best the patent owners can hope is the claims in questions are reinstated without any amendment, i.e. nothing added to it, if not, the next thing the patent owners can hope is, an amendment may overcome such rejection.

    TiVo had proposed to add 8 new claims, that is an amendment. These additions cannot possibly make things better than had the reexamination/rejection not happened. If so, no one will ever try to do any reexaminations.
     
  13. Apr 27, 2010 #853 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    We all agree that TiVo can't broaden its patent. I've already posted for all to see the facts on what can and cannot be added. Look at my old posts.

    But the fact remains that claims 31 and 61 are INDEPENDENT of the 8 new claims. Those dependent claims are an application of the reference claims. The dependent claims are obviously narrower than claims 31/61.

    If TiVo loses on claims 31/61 years from now, they could possibly lose because of the broadness of the original claims. They could then argue that the narrower dependent claims were not conceived by the combination of prior art and then those claims might be upheld.

    As Greg said, this is years down the road after many appeals. But the bottom line is that the original claims are unmodified.
     
  14. Apr 27, 2010 #854 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    But with this amendemnt, and I am not saying this amendment is to amend the two software claims, just that it is an amendment to overcome the software claim rejection by prior art.

    If the PTO actually accepts this TiVo's amendment while rejecting the software claims, but nevertheless agrees to certify the 8 new claims, there will be no appeal, it will be the end of this reexamination. A recertification means the reexamination is over. TiVo asked for such recertification to end the reexamination, if the PTO agrees, this whole PTO proceeding will be over. There will be no "years from now".
     
  15. Apr 27, 2010 #855 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    You forgot an "and", as in "TiVo asked for such recertification and to end the rexaimination."
     
  16. Apr 27, 2010 #856 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    What is the difference? Once it ends, there is no appeal, no "years from now". Are you saying the PTO can recertify but still let the reexamination continue? If so it cannot recertify, the PTO can continue to reject, or choose to recertify and end the reexamination.

    What I am saying is, if the PTO again rejects the two software claims, and recertify, as TiVo proposed, the 8 new claims, this reexamination will be over, so are the two software claims. There will be no appeal, because TiVo asked for such recertification, TiVo gets it.

    The recertified TiVo's patent will have all the old hardware claims, plus the 8 new claims, minus the two software claims.
     
  17. Apr 27, 2010 #857 of 1017
    tivonomo

    tivonomo Legend

    228
    0
    Mar 9, 2010
    TiVo has the right to appeal any ruling that the CAFC/USPTO makes. TiVo wants to add the claims and reinstate the contested claims. As James said we've gone through this exact conversation before... and back then you were unable to post anything that TiVo said that agrees with your completely counter-intuitive claim.
     
  18. Apr 27, 2010 #858 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    You mean the PTO? I have quoted what TiVo said in its filing, unfortunately I cannot quote it again. You will have to go look for it.

    If the PTO certifies this reexamination as TiVo asked the PTO to do, then it will be the end of this reexamination, there will be no appeal, it will not be a ruling the PTO makes, rather an amendment the patent owner makes and accepted by the PTO. Therefore there cannot be an appeal, the patent owner cannot appeal an action proposed by himself.
     
  19. Apr 27, 2010 #859 of 1017
    Curtis52

    Curtis52 Hall Of Fame

    1,487
    0
    Oct 13, 2003
    "All of the stated grounds of objection and rejection have been properly traversed,
    accommodated, or rendered moot. The Patent Owner therefore respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider all presently outstanding objections and rejections and that they be withdrawn."

    TiVo asks for the issuance of an intent to file a Reexamination Certificate. This is not the certificate itself, just a document stating an intent to file a certificate. Depending on what the intent document says, TiVo can appeal for years if they want to before the actual certificate is filed. It is my belief however, that TiVo has had several conversations with the examiner and that all concerns have been remedied.
     
  20. Apr 27, 2010 #860 of 1017
    jacmyoung

    jacmyoung Hall Of Fame

    6,544
    0
    Sep 8, 2006
    But not after. If the PTO issues an intent to file such certificate, accepting TiVo's proposal, then obviously the certification will be issued soon, after that it is over, no appeal.

    Does that include what TiVo said in its amendment that, should the PTO found the two software claims unpatentable, the PTO should certify the 8 new claims, therefore resolve all issues? Is that what you had implied? If so we shall soon see a new TiVo patent recorded, with all the hardware claims intact, with the 8 new claims added, and with the two software claims dropped.

    Did you mean that?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page