Looking at the prosecution history, Apple received its first notice of allowance for this patent in March of 2011. So why did it take so long to get this patent granted? Because Apple filed six separate Continued Prosecution Application requests, each time submitting a new Information Disclosure Statement (IDS). Did Apple intentionally delay the patent issuing? It is possible that Apple is gearing up to assert the patent and is making sure all the references are considered by the PTO. The list of references is quite extensive and includes exhibits from the Apple v. Samsung case.
Another interesting point to note in the prosecution history is the obviousness-type double patenting rejection received during prosecution. The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting bars applicants from obtaining a second patent on an invention that is deemed to be an obvious variation of a claimed invention. The rejection was received over the co-pending application 29/353,311 in view of US Patent No. D602,017 and D451,505. The 29/353,311 application (now patent D637,596) discloses a more generic iPad design.
No comments :
Post a Comment