Wolf's Patents: Process for Providing Event Photographs for Inspection, Selection, and Distribution via a Computer Network
- U.S. 6,985,875 (’875 patent) and U.S. 7,047,214 (’214 patent).
- Latest date the material will qualify as prior art: Aug. 17, 2001
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
The Wolf patents claim to cover a method of selling photos of sporting events over the internet. First, a photographer takes on-site photos of participants of a sporting event, such as a marathon or triathlon. Then, the photos are associated with “identifying data,” such as bib numbers worn by the participants, the actual names of the participants, or the date and time the photograph was taken. The photographer uploads the photos on a server and informs the participants of the identifying data (e.g., by e-mail or posting), so that the participants can use the identifying data to search their individual photos and/or view the photos for inspection or ordering.
II. HOW TO READ A PATENT
Every patent has a section entitled “claims.” Each claim in a patent is a separate “invention” that can be used to sue someone. The patent holder only has legal rights to what is listed in the claims section. The patent holder does not have legal rights to anything else (e.g., background information).
Each claim is either independent or dependent. As implied by the term itself, an independent claim stands alone in its descriptions and lists all the necessary elements. On the other hand, a dependent claim incorporates everything listed in an independent claim but adds an additional limitation.
III. CLAIMS AT ISSUE
The ’875 patent has 4 independent claims and 36 dependent claims. The ’214 patent has 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims. In both of the Wolf patents, the most important claims to bust are the independent claims (Claim Set I below). These are the Wolf patents’ core claims and “busting” them would greatly reduce the patents' effectiveness. We are also interested in busting Claim Sets II-V, which cover key variants of the patents.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART NEEDED TO BUST THIS PATENT
The Wolf patents were filed on Nov. 5, 1999 but we will accept any prior art dated before Aug 17, 2001. Common examples of prior art include, but are not limited to:
The Wolf patents claim to cover a method of selling photos of sporting events over the internet. First, a photographer takes on-site photos of participants of a sporting event, such as a marathon or triathlon. Then, the photos are associated with “identifying data,” such as bib numbers worn by the participants, the actual names of the participants, or the date and time the photograph was taken. The photographer uploads the photos on a server and informs the participants of the identifying data (e.g., by e-mail or posting), so that the participants can use the identifying data to search their individual photos and/or view the photos for inspection or ordering.
II. HOW TO READ A PATENT
Every patent has a section entitled “claims.” Each claim in a patent is a separate “invention” that can be used to sue someone. The patent holder only has legal rights to what is listed in the claims section. The patent holder does not have legal rights to anything else (e.g., background information).
Each claim is either independent or dependent. As implied by the term itself, an independent claim stands alone in its descriptions and lists all the necessary elements. On the other hand, a dependent claim incorporates everything listed in an independent claim but adds an additional limitation.
III. CLAIMS AT ISSUE
The ’875 patent has 4 independent claims and 36 dependent claims. The ’214 patent has 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims. In both of the Wolf patents, the most important claims to bust are the independent claims (Claim Set I below). These are the Wolf patents’ core claims and “busting” them would greatly reduce the patents' effectiveness. We are also interested in busting Claim Sets II-V, which cover key variants of the patents.
Claim Set I: Claims 1, 11, 17 of the ’214 patent and Claims 1, 16, 24, 29 of the ’875
patent
Claims Set I covers a method for taking photos of a sporting event and selling them on-line to the participants of the sporting event. The method contains the following steps:
patent
Claims Set I covers a method for taking photos of a sporting event and selling them on-line to the participants of the sporting event. The method contains the following steps:
1. Taking photos of a participant of a sporting event
2.Associating identifying data with each photo. The identifying data could be a number worn by a participant, a participant’s name, a date and time the photo was taken, or a code acquired from a component (e.g., sensor) worn by the participant.
3. Informing the participant of the identifying data
4. Transferring the photos to a computer network server
5. Cataloging each photo according to the identifying data
6. Accessing the server at a location other than the sporting event and searching for a photo utilizing the identifying data
7. Displaying the photo for inspection and ordering
Claim Set II: Claim 3 of the ’214 patent and Claims 3, 30 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set II covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that it includes the step where a
camera taking the photo is triggered when a component worn by the participant passes a predetermined point. For example, the component can be a sensor worn by the event participant to signal when they have passed a certain checkpoint, like the finish line.
Claim Set III: Claims 7, 15, 19 of the ’214 patent and Claims 12, 20, 25, 37 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set III covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that it includes the step where a digital camera taking the photo is electronically connected to the server for immediate download of photos from the event to the server.
Claim Set IV: Claims 8, 16, 20 of the ’214 patent and Claims 13, 21, 26, 38 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set IV covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that it includes the steps of the participant ordering a photo using the server and the photographer fulfilling the order by sending the photo.
Claim Set V: Claims 5, 13 of the ’214 patent and Claims 10, 18 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set IV covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that an approximate time is the identifying data used to search for a particular photo.
Claims Set II covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that it includes the step where a
camera taking the photo is triggered when a component worn by the participant passes a predetermined point. For example, the component can be a sensor worn by the event participant to signal when they have passed a certain checkpoint, like the finish line.
Claim Set III: Claims 7, 15, 19 of the ’214 patent and Claims 12, 20, 25, 37 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set III covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that it includes the step where a digital camera taking the photo is electronically connected to the server for immediate download of photos from the event to the server.
Claim Set IV: Claims 8, 16, 20 of the ’214 patent and Claims 13, 21, 26, 38 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set IV covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that it includes the steps of the participant ordering a photo using the server and the photographer fulfilling the order by sending the photo.
Claim Set V: Claims 5, 13 of the ’214 patent and Claims 10, 18 of the ’875 patent
Claims Set IV covers the same method as in Claim Set I, except that an approximate time is the identifying data used to search for a particular photo.
IV. DESCRIPTION OF PRIOR ART NEEDED TO BUST THIS PATENT
The Wolf patents were filed on Nov. 5, 1999 but we will accept any prior art dated before Aug 17, 2001. Common examples of prior art include, but are not limited to:
(1) web page,
(2) published patent,
(3) conference paper,
(4) newsgroup forum post,
(5) news article,
(6) technical paper,
(7) poster,
(8) brochure
Ideally, the best prior art will include all of the steps of the claim in the way described in the patents. Ideally, the prior art will specifically apply to the field of event photography. That would show that the patented method was not new when the application was filed, and this can invalidate the patent.
Claim Set I: Claims 1, 11, 17 of the ’214 patent and Claims 1, 16, 24, 29 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art to bust Claim Set I would contain:
A description of a method of taking photos of participants where
Claim Set I: Claims 1, 11, 17 of the ’214 patent and Claims 1, 16, 24, 29 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art to bust Claim Set I would contain:
A description of a method of taking photos of participants where
1. A photographer takes photos of the participants of an event and uploads them on a server
2. Participants of the event are informed of the identifying data (e.g., their names, the numbers they worn at the event, or date and time the photo was taken) with which they can search for their photos
3. Participants goes online (e.g., photo company’s website) to search for their photos using the identifying data
4. Participants view the photos for inspection and ordering
Please note that the method does NOT have to be related to sporting events. We anticipate that the prior art for this claim may be related to taking photos of any event where there are a large number of people (e.g., weddings, graduation ceremonies, dog shows, horse races, ski races, amusement parks, beauty pageants, etc.).
Even if a piece of prior art does not describe all of the elements in a claim, it can still be used to bust these patents if it describes some of the elements and can be combined with other pieces of prior art that describe the other elements. So the next best prior art would describe almost all of the steps listed in Claim Set I. That kind of art might show that the patented method was obvious when the application was filed, which would also invalidate the patents. For example, prior art that is missing a few elements could be combined with prior art that describes the missing elements to show that the patented method is obvious.
Therefore, it would be very helpful for us to have prior art that includes any substantial number of the steps of Claim Set I. In particular, it would be useful to find prior art in which the photographer tells the participants what identifying data the participants can use to search through the photos.
Claim Set II: Claim 3 of the ’214 patent and Claims 3, 30 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set II will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but specifically mention that a camera taking the photo is triggered when a component (e.g., sensor) worn by the participant passes a predetermined point (e.g., finish line).
Claim Set III: Claims 7, 15, 19 of the ’214 patent and Claims 12, 20, 25, 37 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set III will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but would specifically mention that the digital camera used to take the photo is electronically connected to the server for immediate download of photos from the event to the server.
Claim Set IV: Claims 8, 16, 20 of the ’214 patent and Claims 13, 21, 26, 38 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set IV will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but would specifically mention that a participant can order a photo online and the company fulfills the order by sending the photo to the participant.
Claim Set V: Claims 5, 13 of the ’214 patent and Claims 10, 18 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set V will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but would specifically mention that an approximate time can be used to search for a particular photo. For example, a participant might search for all pictures taken by the photographer from 11:30am – 12:00pm. That way, in order to view his/her photo, the participant need not know the exact time he/she passed the photographer.
V. WHERE TO SEND PRIOR ART
If you are aware of prior art regarding these patents, we would appreciate your help. Let us know at: wolfpatents@gmail.com.
Even if a piece of prior art does not describe all of the elements in a claim, it can still be used to bust these patents if it describes some of the elements and can be combined with other pieces of prior art that describe the other elements. So the next best prior art would describe almost all of the steps listed in Claim Set I. That kind of art might show that the patented method was obvious when the application was filed, which would also invalidate the patents. For example, prior art that is missing a few elements could be combined with prior art that describes the missing elements to show that the patented method is obvious.
Therefore, it would be very helpful for us to have prior art that includes any substantial number of the steps of Claim Set I. In particular, it would be useful to find prior art in which the photographer tells the participants what identifying data the participants can use to search through the photos.
Claim Set II: Claim 3 of the ’214 patent and Claims 3, 30 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set II will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but specifically mention that a camera taking the photo is triggered when a component (e.g., sensor) worn by the participant passes a predetermined point (e.g., finish line).
Claim Set III: Claims 7, 15, 19 of the ’214 patent and Claims 12, 20, 25, 37 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set III will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but would specifically mention that the digital camera used to take the photo is electronically connected to the server for immediate download of photos from the event to the server.
Claim Set IV: Claims 8, 16, 20 of the ’214 patent and Claims 13, 21, 26, 38 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set IV will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but would specifically mention that a participant can order a photo online and the company fulfills the order by sending the photo to the participant.
Claim Set V: Claims 5, 13 of the ’214 patent and Claims 10, 18 of the ’875 patent
Ideally, prior art that could "bust" Claim Set V will be a description of a method similar to prior art for Claim Set I, but would specifically mention that an approximate time can be used to search for a particular photo. For example, a participant might search for all pictures taken by the photographer from 11:30am – 12:00pm. That way, in order to view his/her photo, the participant need not know the exact time he/she passed the photographer.
V. WHERE TO SEND PRIOR ART
If you are aware of prior art regarding these patents, we would appreciate your help. Let us know at: wolfpatents@gmail.com.
