Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[dayzman]

Hi,

I've been looking at Friendster's patent for social networking fiiled in 2003 (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=aTB4AAAAEBAJ ) and much of it seems to cover aspects of 'displaying.. relationships in a social network'. Most of the figures included are part of the interface for collecting and presenting information about social relationships. How come this is eligible for an utility patent? Shouldn't this be a design patent instead?

Thanks

[JimIvey]

What a utility patent covers is defined by its claims, not the figures.  Here's what that patent covers (at its broadest):

What is claimed is:

1. In a computer system including a server computer and a database of registered users that stores for each registered user, a user ID of the registered user and a set of user IDs of registered users who are directly connected to the registered user, a method for connecting a first registered user to a second registered user through one or more other registered users, the method comprising the steps of:

    setting a maximum degree of separation (Nmax) of at least two that is allowed for connecting any two registered users, wherein two registered users who are directly connected are deemed to be separated by one degree of separation and two registered users who are connected through no less than one other registered user are deemed to be separated by two degrees of separation and two registered users who are connected through no less than N other registered users are deemed to be separated by N+1 degrees of separation;

    searching for the user ID of the second registered user in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are less than Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, and not in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are greater than or equal to Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, until the user ID of the second registered user is found in one of the searched sets; and

    connecting the first registered user to the second registered user if the user ID of the second registered user is found in one of the searched sets,

    wherein the method limits the searching of the second registered user in the sets of user IDs that are stored for registered users who are less than Nmax degrees of separation away from the first registered user, such that the first registered user and the second registered user who are separated by more than Nmax degrees of separation are not found and connected.

If anyone excludes any part of that, they don't infringe -- most likely anyway.

Regards.

[MYK]

I've been looking at Friendster's patent for social networking fiiled in 2003 (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=aTB4AAAAEBAJ ) and much of it seems to cover aspects of 'displaying.. relationships in a social network'. Most of the figures included are part of the interface for collecting and presenting information about social relationships. How come this is eligible for an utility patent? Shouldn't this be a design patent instead?

Why would it be a design patent?  They're not patenting an "ornamental appearance".  They're patenting the FUNCTIONALITY.

[khazzah]

I've been looking at Friendster's patent for social networking fiiled in 2003 (http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=aTB4AAAAEBAJ ) and much of it seems to cover aspects of 'displaying.. relationships in a social network'. Most of the figures included are part of the interface for collecting and presenting information about social relationships. How come this is eligible for an utility patent? Shouldn't this be a design patent instead?

I think you have two basic (but common) misunderstandings.

One, you're looking at the figures. Irrelevant. As pointed out by JimIvey, what matters is the claims, and the claims aren't about the UI, as JimIvey demonstrated.

Two, you seem to think that since a UI is about how things look and design patents are also about how things look, then a design patent is appropriate for a UI.

To that, I say: if the novelty of the UI is really about the look, then yes, a design patent is appropriate. But if novelty is typically about how the UI interacts with the use, ie, functionality, then a utility is appropriate.

[dayzman]

Right. Since only claims count, how come so many figures of the interface are included which don't contribute to the claims? For example, Fig 3a contains an interface of the registration screen.

Thanks

[JimIvey]

Claims define what a patent covers.  Period.

The rest of the application/patent is what the applicant must give in exchange for the coverage afforded by the claims.

It's rather basic and fundamental.

Regards.

[khazzah]

Right. Since only claims count, how come so many figures of the interface are included which don't contribute to the claims? For example, Fig 3a contains an interface of the registration screen.

The spec/drawings are required to "enable" [term of art someone to make and/or use the claimed invention. Thus, the spec/drawings include lots of stuff which the patent attorney and/or inventor see as enabling.

Sometimes the spec contains stuff which maybe isn't necessary for enablement. But most folks feel it's better to err on the side of disclosing too much.

[patentsusa]

Right. Since only claims count, how come so many figures of the interface are included which don't contribute to the claims? For example, Fig 3a contains an interface of the registration screen.

Thanks

Extra disclosure might be included to give the applicant the option of filing divisional applications down the road to multiple other aspects.