• この時間
    in:  | 

    この時間

                            目次はこちら

    この時間

     –>この時/このとき

    (INTERVAL)
    $$ The time interval is set in a known manner to avoid the possibility of detection of pulses directly from the transmitter 58a. / この時間間隔は、送信機58aからのパルスを直接検出しないよう、周知の方法で設定される。(USP8302478)

    (PERIOD)
    $$ Extending this period to 72 hours (held at +10V) gave an average current leakage of .about.200 nA. / この時間を72時間(+10Vに保持)に延長すると、~200nAの平均電流漏れが得られる。(USP8684503)

    $$ The period of time depends upon the distance to the next set of neighbouring readers 3 and the speed of the object 1. / この時間の長さは、次の一連の隣接リーダ3までの距離、及びオブジェクト1の速度によって変わる。(USP8284033)

    $$ However, the period could be changed, as needed to suit the application. / しかしながら、この時間は、用途に応じて適宜変更できる。(USP8276584)

    (TIME)
    $$ FIG. 3 (b) shows that in this example desired vehicle acceleration is constant, until time t1, and vehicle speed VS over this time is thus a straight line. / 図3(b)は、この場合は所望の車両加速度は時間t1まで一定であり、したがって、この時間にわたる車両速度VSは直線である。(USP8989970)

    $$ After this time the voltage is removed and the coated electrode removed from the emulsion. / この時間の後、電圧を解除し、コーティングされた電極をエマルションから取り出す。(USP8684503)

    $$ If this time is equal or less than Y seconds 81, the OFF mode is indicated to the user 84 and the program returns to the IDLE routine 71. / この時間がY秒以下である場合(81)、使用者にOFFモードが指示され(84)、プログラムはIDLEルーチン(71)に戻る。(USP8516628)

    $$ If the displayed stimulus is not detected as `Seen` within this time then the stimulus is categorised as `Not Seen`. / 表示された視覚刺激がこの時間内に「見えた」として検出されない場合、その視覚刺激は「見えない」として分類される。(USP8337019)

    $$ Typically, this time is set to a pre-determined limit, for example 1 second. / 通常、この時間は、予め定義した限度、例えば1秒にセットされている。(USP8337019)

                            目次はこちら

  • Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result
    in: Patently-O  | 

    Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result

    Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result

    In re Facebook (Fed. Cir. 2018) (nonprecedential opinion)

    Facebook’s U.S. Patent Application No. 13/715,636 claims a method for displaying a set of images after reshuffling or resizing the images.  The Examiner rejected Claim 1 (below) as anticipated; and that rejection was affirmed by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  Now on appeal, the Federal Circuit has reversed and remanded — finding that the USPTO had too loosely interpreted the prior art.

    The claimed image rendering process begins with a sequence of images. Each image is assigned a “first position” within an “array of contiguous image elements” — in other words, the images are put in a particular order.  When a user adjusts the position or size of an image — there may be a need for reshuffling of the images into “second positions.”  The claimed method includes a requirement that the reshuffled sequence “be contiguous.” — i.e., no gaps in the array.

    Notice the reshuffle above that occurred from 1A to 1B when a user resized image 130.

    The claims expressly require that the reshuffle retain contiguity.  The problem for the PTO is that the identified prior art (Perrodin) did not require contiguity “in all cases.”   The court wrote:

    Nothing about Perrodin’s algorithm required contiguity.

    Continue reading Teaching a Result vs Guaranteeing a Result at Patently-O.