JPEG Patent's Single Claim Rejected (And Smacked Down For Good Measure)

from the a-good-first-step dept

Fri, Aug 1st 2008 3:10pm — Mike Masnick

We've been covering the ongoing saga of an old patent we've referred to as the "JPEG Patent." This actually isn't the first patent we've called the JPEG Patent, because multiple people claimed to hold patents over the technology that goes into a JPEG image. But, this one was rather special. The patent had been used, repeatedly, by lawyer Ray Niro, against a wide range of opponents, including a patent system critic. The end result was a drawn out review process where all of the original claims were rejected, but a single new claim was added to the patent, which Niro insisted covered JPEGs on a website.

Earlier this year, the Patent Office agreed to re-examine that claim. On top of that, a judge overseeing one of the lawsuits involving the patent decided to put the suit on hold pending the outcome of the re-exam. Of course, the re-exam will take some time, but the initial re-exam came out recently and it does not look good for this patent:

The one remaining claim was rejected on 19 different grounds, and then the examiner went on for over 40 pages, explaining in great detail, why the claim (and, thus, the entire patent) were not valid. Kinda makes you wonder why it was approved in the first place, but that's a different discussion for a different day. This is, of course, just the initial re-exam. Niro gets to respond, but given the amount of detail that goes into rejecting a single claim, he's got quite an uphill battle.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: jpeg patent, patents, re-exam, rejection

16 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Nick Stamoulis, 1 Aug 2008 @ 3:18pm

Ah interesting patent to fight over... 40 pages of rejection? Seems a bit lengthy!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Juan, 1 Aug 2008 @ 3:34pm

It's interesting that one of the grounds for rejection was based on the way the CompuServe on-line service allowed users to download GIF files back in 1989. Brings back a lot of memories...

As someone who reads a lot of Office Actions, I've never seen a patent examiner spend so many pages trashing a single claim. It could be that the Patent Office assigned its "A-Team" to this patent given its storied history and the high profile treatment it receives from this blog and others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sticky Tape Guru, 1 Aug 2008 @ 4:02pm

Oh....nothing much!
I hear they don't allow JPEGs into branded communities.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2008 @ 4:58pm

Re: Oh....nothing much!
enough with the branded communities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darksurf, 1 Aug 2008 @ 5:00pm

God, How retarded!
Can I please patent canvas? How about paper, can I patent that? No? Then why the hell can people patent the jpeg?!
Its used everywhere and just as much as college ruled paper!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2008 @ 5:26pm

Re: Oh....nothing much!
Classic
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KD, 1 Aug 2008 @ 8:55pm

What's with the nonstandard format?
Hey, what's with the unusual format in which the ruling is presented? Wasn't an ordinary HTML or PDF format available?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Aug 2008 @ 9:34pm

Re: Re: Oh....nothing much!
no.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Your Gawd and Master, 2 Aug 2008 @ 6:47am

Re: Oh....nothing much!
do you mean the goatse branded communities? or the pedophile branded communities? or maybe the branded community gay sex scandal? or the branded community kills retarded kid with a broken lawn chair? hot bdsm branded community?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
oregonnerd, 2 Aug 2008 @ 7:17am

proofreading/sorry mike
"...while the claim (and, thus, the entire patent) were not valid."
[that "while" should be a "why"]
--Glenn
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IPesq, 2 Aug 2008 @ 10:18am

Re: God, How retarded!
I would imagine that at some point, somebody did or could have patented the composition of paper or the method of making paper. While the JPEG seems old, it only came out towards the end of the 80s. The compression standard came out in 92 or so, but these things are patentable. Now the question is, is the patent in question novel and non-obvious in light of what was out BEFORE the application was filed. That is what is being determined.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So What, 2 Aug 2008 @ 11:06am

Re: Re: God, How retarded!
The Patent Office document attached to Mike's article specifically cited an article published in 1990, more than a year before that patent was filed, discussing downloading of JPEG images from a remote server. I don't see how the patent holder can claim that anything in this patent was new.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous of Course, 3 Aug 2008 @ 2:11pm

JPEG; Joint Photographic Experts Group
It was developed by a consortium at first used
mainly for transmission of photos from space
craft.

I suppose one of the members could have pulled
a rambus and gone after a patent but there was
more integrity in the JPEG group.

They started work about 1987 and the first draft
was released around 1990. Digital Equipment Corp.
was one of the consortium members.

At least that's how I remember it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dr Chris, 4 Aug 2008 @ 4:21pm

Retroactive Innovation
This must be some sort of corollary of the Twins Paradox in Special Relativity; one of them is definitely Evil.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
دردشه, 11 Jul 2009 @ 9:19am

This must be some sort of corollary of the Twins Paradox in Special Relativity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary Delaney, 19 Nov 2009 @ 11:36am

JPEG viability
Apparently, your mission is at a standstill, and will be going by the wayside, unless a power shift is injected. I have a plan, that would involve a law suit to make those in opposition run for cover. Please respond in getting this viable opportunity retro-fitted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]