Remote query communication system
Nickname - "The JPEG-on-a-website patent"
An improved method and apparatus for downloading compressed audio/visual (AV) data and/or graphical/tabular information from a remote Server to an End User Station (EUS) for the purpose of decompressing and/or displaying said downloaded data. The EUS may transmit a query to the Server manually and/or automatically for the purpose of initiating a process in the Server (e.g. data compression, indexing into a very large database, etc.), which requires the high speed processing, large capacity and multi-distributed data storage, etc.) which are typically preferred at a Server. The EUS provides appropriate inverse processing (e.g. data decompression) which, by its nature, requires relatively little processing power to accomplish. Thus, the method of this invention exploits the inherent asymmetry in the overall process of an EUS querying a remote Server (and/or Server Network) for a data service (e.g. retrieval of AV data in faster than real time) where most of the processing power and global scheduling is performed by the Server.
GotRenewables? - Track the latest developments in renewable energy
1. A method for downloading responsive data from a remote server comprising the following steps:
identifying a query via a data input means and inputting said query to remote query and data retrieval means;
transmitting said query from said remote query and data retrieval means to a remote host via an input/output means;
receiving a compressed or non-compressed response to said query at said remote query and data retrieval system from said remote host via said input/output means; and
displaying a presentation corresponding to said query response on output means.
2. Apparatus for querying and downloading data from a remote server comprising:
means for creating a query via a data input means and inputting said query to remote query and data retrieval means;
means for transmitting said query from said remote query and data retrieval means to a remote host via an input/output means,
said remote query and data retrieval system receiving a response to said query from said remote host via said input/output means, said remote query and data retrieval displaying a presentation corresponding to said query response on output means.
3. Apparatus for querying and downloading data from a remote server in a system comprising:
means for formulating a query via a data input means and inputting said query to remote query and data retrieval means;
means for transmitting said query from said remote query and data retrieval means to a remote host via an input/output means,
said remote query and data retrieval system receiving a compressed response to said query from said remote host via said input/output means, said remote query and data retrieval system decompressing said compressed response to said query; and
displaying a presentation corresponding to said query response on display means.
6. The apparatus is of claim 3 wherein said transmission means is an auxiliary communication system.
7. Apparatus for querying and downloading data from a remote server comprising:
end user means for formulating a query via a data input means and inputting said query to remote query and data retrieval means;
means for transmitting said query from said remote query and data retrieval means to a remote host processor via a concentrator means,
said remote query and data retrieval system receiving a compressed response to said query from said remote host via said input/output means, said remote query and data retrieval system decompressing said compressed response to said query, and
displaying a presentation corresponding to said query response on output means.
8. The apparatus of claim 7 further comprising concentrator means for storing and forwarding EUS requests and corresponding server responses for a multiplicity of EUS's.
9. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said remote host utilizes a RISC based processor and a UNIX based operating system.
10. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said remote host utilizes a CISC based processor and a UNIX based operating system.
11. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said Compressed response is compressed utilizing at least two compression techniques.
12. The apparatus of claim 9 wherein said RISC based processor and said UNIX based operating system operate in a windowing environment.
13. The apparatus of claim 9 wherein said CISC based processor and said UNIX based operating system operate in a windowing environment.
14. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said remote server resides on a compatible network in which CISC and RISC based processors operating with a UNIX based operating system communicate in a windowing environment.
15. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said end user station incorporates an embedded microprocessor, wherein said microprocessor comprises an Intel 80.times.86, where X is an integer greater than 1.
16. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein said end user station incorporates an embedded microprocessor, wherein said microprocessor comprises an Motorola 68OYO, where Y is an integer greater then 2.
Comments from the community
17 comments have been received for United States Patent No. 5,253,341. Want to add another?
#1|FizzMaster comments:
On July 24, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Reexamination Certificate for patent no. 5,253,341, with only a single claim (new claim 17).
Download a .pdf of the patent using the button at the top right of this page to view Claim 17.
#2|FizzMaster comments:
Global Patent Holdings, the current owner of the '341 patent (and apparently a division of Acacia) has sued several companies and people for infringement of the '341 patent for the act of posting a compressed JPEG image on a website.
#3|Pedro Jimenez comments:
This is bullship, you are patent trolls
#4|BabelBoy comments:
Did Niro write these claims? They are absurd. An examiner would have to have only half a functional hemisphere to allow them in the first place. What are they, some sort of new hybrid apparatus/process claims? We've all heard so much about this patent and Niro's bully-tactics, but this is the first time I've seen the claims. This is embarrassing.
#5|an old timer comments:
Claim 17 is a joke. It basically tries to patent everything in data transfer that has been around longer than the bozos listed on the original patent. Anyway, with a k10 processor (not covered in the original list) we would all be immune.
#6|anon comments:
Can you post claim 17 in the comments for everyone to see without needing to download the .pdf?
#7|FizzMaster comments:
Good idea...
Claim 17, which is the only remaining claim in US patent 5,253,341 following its reexamination by the Patent and Trademark Office, reads as follows:
17. A method for downloading responsive data from a remote server comprising the following steps:
(a) identifying a query via a data input means and inputting said query to remote query and data retrieval means;
(b) transmitting said query from said remote query and data retrieval means to said remote server via an input/output means;
(c) receiving a compressed or non-compressed response to said query at said remote query and data retrieval means from said remote server via said input/output means;
(d) displaying a presentation corresponding to said compressed or non-compressed response on output means;
(e) wherein said compressed or non-compressed response is compressed prior to receipt at said remote query and data retrieval means, and wherein said compressed response is decompressed at said remote query and data retrieval means using an asymmetric decompression technique corresponding to an inverse operation of the technique used to compress said compressed or non-compressed response.
#8|anonymous comments:
I've read the patent specification, and have the following quick thoughts that, I think, cut against any infringement theory that attempts to cover "downloading responsive data, including audio/visual and graphical presentations, such as JPEG images and/or other compressed data" from web pages on the internet (the theory advanced by Niro and GPH).
1. Overall scope of the disclosure - Generally speaking, the disclosure simply cannot be fairly read to cover web browsing. It was clearly directed to some sort of telephone-based query system that displays information on a television set of an authorized user of the system, which is vastly different than the display of information on any computer monitor that is connected to the internet.
2. "authorized user" - Claim 17 is directed to "a method for downloading responsive data from a remote server...." As with any method claim, you must ask "who infringes the claim by performing the steps of the method?" The patent specification clearly states that a user of the system is an "authorized subscriber of the system":
"In summary, the present invention permits an end user (i.e., an authorized subscriber of the System) to access multiple distributed databases...."
Is a web surfer who browses to a public site on the internet an "authorized subscriber" of "the System" that serves the web site?
3. "output means" - where is the response displayed? Again, the specification is clearly directed to a system that displays information on a television of an authorized user of the system. Indeed, the specification characterizes the invention as displaying information on a tv:
"In summary, the present invention permits an end user...to access multiple distributed databases...and to display this data...on a standard television set...."
4. Claim 17 clearly requires that the response be "compressed prior to receipt at said remote query and data retrieval means" and that it be "decompressed at said remote query and data retrieval means." Aren't JPEG images stored in compressed form on the web server, and displayed in the same compressed form on a user's remote browser? Does a web-surfer's computer do any decompression of JPEG images?
5. "asymmetric decompression technique" - Claim 17 also requires that the decompression that occurs at the remote query and data retrieval means be accomplished "using an asymmetric decompression technique." If a web-surfer's computer doesn't do any decompression of JPEG images, there can be no "asymmetric decompression technique."
6. the "remote server" - the specification makes a lot of hay out of the concept between an inherent asymmetry between the remote server and the end user station:
"The system and its implementation is thus inherently asymmetric in that the remote server/host utilizes, and by necessity requires, a more powerful processor for data compression than the EUS requires for data decompression."
Many web servers running Apache are standard Intel-based machines these days...using the same processors as the notebooks that surfers are using to access the pages served by the server. I bet that in many cases the notebooks have "a more powerful processor" than that of the web server.
Perhaps the alleged infringers should upgrade the notebooks and desktops of all their employees to ensure that they have the latest-and-greatest processor, one step above that of their web server. ;-)
#9|anony comments:
On December 21, 2007, someone in Chicago filed a reexamination request challenging the lone surviving claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,253,341 C1 (claim 17), presenting several new pieces of prior art.
This is reported at:
here and here.
The only article that appears to evaluate the merits of the request is at:
here.#10|Bill comments:
GBH appears to be a patent troll of the worst sort. They've certainly discovered a cash cow based on the stupidest, flimsiest of concepts. The silliness displayed by the patent office in the first place, coupled with an extremely litigious American society = a huge cash cow for patent trolls such as this.
I'm just left shaking my head, and keeping jpgs on my web site.
Come sue me. I dare ya. hehe#11|Mike Brown comments:
> Aren't JPEG images stored in compressed form on the web server,
> and displayed in the same compressed form on a user's remote
> browser? Does a web-surfer's computer do any decompression of
> JPEG images?
Yes, JPEG images are stored in compressed form, but they must be decompressed as part of the conversion process from digital file to image before they can be displayed as pictures. It's the lossy compression/decompression which results in the artifacting around any sharp boundaries on JPEG images.
#12|Patent Dude comments:
>On December 21, 2007, someone in Chicago filed a reexamination
>request challenging the lone surviving claim of U.S. Patent No.
>5,253,341 C1 (claim 17), presenting several new pieces of prior
>art.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently (March 5, 2008) granted that request and has agreed to reexamine the patent. They specifically found that eleven new pieces of prior art that were not previously considered raised substantial new questions regarding claim 17. TechDirt covered it here:
TechDirt on Reexamination of United States Patent No. 5,253,341
A copy of the Patent Office's decision is available here: [.pdf]
It is unclear how long the reexamination proceedings will take to complete, but this development casts a huge cloud on the future of this patent. This patent was first subject to reexamination in 2000 which took more than seven years to complete, but that was mostly the patent holder's fault. The patent expires in March 2011.
#13|Ho Hum comments:
Forbes just wrote an article about this patent and the recent reexamination. It is contained here:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/0505/044a.html
#14|Lo Ganda comments:
Looks like the reexamination of this patent is now well underway; the patent office in late July 2008 issued an Office Action rejecting the one remaining claim (Claim 17) on about 19 separate grounds. It was covered here:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080731/0337491852.shtml
#15|Johnny Chimpo comments:
I hope they argued 112 p 6 \"means-plus-function\" on this thing, both for indefiniteness and to tie the methods to whatever means are disclosed in the patent.
#16|Mike Smith comments:
The reexamination of this patent is making more progress. As reported in TechDirt, the USPTO just issued another Office Action rejecting the one remaining claim (Claim 17) and the new claims proposed by the patent holder. TechDirt has the story and links here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090628/1533475384.shtml
#17|No one comments:
This patent is now officially \"dead.\" On November 24, 2009, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a reexamination certificate revoking this patent.