Hacker News Reader

Comment by bdowling | Hacker News Reader

> some parts of them seem to definitely be a prior art

The standard is to consider ALL of the elements together in the specific configuration. If this were not the case, then any invention that incorporated any conventional element (e.g., a lever) would be invalid.

View on HN

It cannot be that simple, can it? Otherwise changing a single element (say "concave surface" to "sine-shaped surface", or "strap" to "clamp") would invalidate the patent.

I think the point is that the patent mentions all the characteristics that are essential to the underlying tech working, and that changing those would likely make the mechanism not work.

But also, judges and courts and all of this stuff exists because at the end of the day human beings look at the facts on the ground. There isn't some sort of magical turing machine that decides on exactitude here.

There are two separate matters considered in these cases. First there is the question of whether the patent claims are valid: this is determined by evaluating prior art, either by itself or in “combination” where you take some elements from different pieces of prior art and argue that a skilled artisan would have known to combine them. Apple appears to have challenged the patents in an IPR proceeding at the Patent Office, using combinations of prior art from earlier patents, which they largely prevailed in. However an appeals court reversed parts of that ruling on technical grounds related to the way the IPR board combined different references (and some claims seem to have survived it.) You can read an appeals court decision here [1]. Separate is the question of infringement: Masimo needed to show that Apple’s products infringe the claims of the patent. Apple could “design around” these claims by changing essential elements of their product, but that would only protect them going forward.

[1] https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1631.OPINION.9-...

Yes. In a well-written claim, then each limitation is only there because it was necessary to get the examiner to allow the patent (i.e., to be valid in light of the known prior art).

Expert patent language typically covers every foreseeable usable variant, and any subset of features likely to provide the core benefits, as 'claims'.

Patents are written by lawyers to cover this, generally speaking. Also a court case will have a judge to apply some "common sense" (to lawyers) rulings, like whether in this context a strap could also be a clamp. Then the lawyers will argue their sides to the judge, try to find precedents, and call in experts, and eventually it gets sorted out.

You must be new to the wonderful world of patent law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com