--Marshall Phelps
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has received a budget increase of about 9 percent for the government's 2008 fiscal year, prompting praise from some tech groups.
However, perhaps the most interesting is the third case discussed by the Troll Tracker. It involves the somewhat infamous patents of Sheldon Goldberg, which got plenty of attention back in 2004 when he started claiming that computer solitaire was covered by his patents. The two key patents are for a network gaming system and a method for playing games on a network.
In another step forward for EFF's Patent Busting Project, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) last week issued an official rejection of all sixteen claims of the Test.com Internet test-taking method patent. The PTO granted re-examination last year after EFF submitted a petition that included several examples of prior art from a company called IntraLearn that had not previously been part of the PTO record. In light of that prior art, the PTO has now found that all sixteen of Test.com's claims obvious and non-patentable.
We have another request to pick your brains regarding prior art. I guess I should set up a new subcategory just for prior art searching. It looks like we'll be doing more and more of it. This time, the request is regarding the new patent application that Apple announced for wifi purchases over an iPhone. Journalist John Oram believes he's found someone who has some prior art. Can you please take a look and if you know of other examples, comment on them here?
Is this patent a harbinger of a dystopian future where computer users' biorhythms will be monitored to increase efficiency? Unlikely. The idea, which was birthed at Microsoft Research, is simply a more advanced version of user focus group testing that Microsoft (and most other software companies) have been doing for years now. Still, if your employer asks you to patch on a pair of electrodes before sitting down to work in the morning, my advice is to find another company to work for.
The trade agency said in a statement that the case would be referred to an administrative law judge, who will hold a hearing and make an initial determination. That decision is subject to review by the ITC commissioners.