Is patent US6513002 valid? Is there prior art in computer textbooks published prior to 1990?

4

About Patent US6513002: Rule-based number formatter

It seems to me that many computer textbooks published before 1990 have include exercises about how to write a simple number translation program. I don't think this patent about a number translator is valid, since programs like these have been mentioned in a number of computer programming textbooks.

Does anyone have any specific examples of prior art for US6513002?

Leo Wong

Posted 2012-11-09T07:22:56.813

Reputation: 41

Hi Leo, can you please specify whether you are looking for specific examples of prior art, or are simply asking whether prior art from 1990 might be valid? Thanks! – samthebrand – 2012-11-09T17:49:54.920

Filing date is 1998. Why look for prior before 1990? – Dr. Stephen Falken – 2012-11-11T22:39:50.177

Answers

3

To the exact question - it is not valid and in force. IBM did not pay the maintance fee due in 2006 and it went abandoned in 2007. I looked it up in Lexis Total Patents. You can use the USPTO maintenance fee shopping window https://ramps.uspto.gov/eram/patentMaintFees.do or PAIR. PAIR has a captcha wall.

George White

Posted 2012-11-09T07:22:56.813

Reputation: 21 648

0

As a programmer, this patent seems to be meaningless. All it appears to do is take a spoken number and translates it into a numeric representation. This seems like what many voice-recognition gadgets already do, especially cell-phones. Plus, besides the initial voice input, the rest is a simple, common algorithm.

Idaho Computer Guy

Posted 2012-11-09T07:22:56.813

Reputation: 1

Can you cite a program or device that performs the functions described in the claims, or a publication that describes them, dating from before February 1997? That's what prior art means, and the question is even more specific. Claim 1 does seem to me to be have been obvious then, but some of the other claims are more substantial. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' – 2012-11-09T21:41:48.797

I think your interpretation of the patent is incorrect. To me it appears to simply concern a method for taking a numerical value ("115") and converting it into a text string ("one hundred fifteen"). Everything based on "rules", which get "identified", of course. Another USPTO joke, if you ask me. – Dr. Stephen Falken – 2012-11-11T22:42:19.327