Download Homework 9: Patent Liability Analysis

ECE 477
Digital Systems Senior Design Project
Fall 2006
Homework 9: Patent Liability Analysis
Due: Friday, September 29, at NOON
Team Code Name: Algorhythms
Group No. 1
Team Member Completing This Homework: Chris Arges
e-mail Address of Team Member: [email protected]
NOTE: This is the second in a series of four “professional component” homework assignments,
each of which is to be completed by one team member. The completed homework will count
for 10% of the team member’s individual grade. The body of the report should be 3-5 pages,
not including this cover sheet, references, attachments or appendices.
Evaluation:
Component/Criterion
Score
Multiplier
Introduction and Summary
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X1
Results of Patent/Product Search
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X4
Analysis of Patent Liability
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X2
Action Recommended
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X1
List of References
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X1
Technical Writing Style
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
X1
TOTAL
Comments:
Points
ECE 477
Digital Systems Senior Design Project
Fall 2006
1.0 Introduction
Welcome to µd: a portable, algorithmically generated music playing device with a
minimalist interface. By utilizing multiple sensor inputs and random numbers, music will be
dynamically generated in real-time according to predefined templates. Most algorithmic music
generation solutions have been primarily software while the µd is a hardware implementation.
The device is a cross between a passive music playing device such as an iPod shuffle [1], and an
interactive musical instrument such as a synthesizer. It will be able to read and play specially
prepared music template files that contain music samples as well as algorithmic music generation
specifications. This will allow the music to be generated algorithmically, a concept which has
been patented [2] and researched. The novel aspect of our device is the combination of these
aspects; however, a project [3] already exists that deals with such a combination of concepts.
Thus, this document will describe the possible infringement and prior art, examine the actual
liability, and finally propose a legally acceptable course of action.
2.0 Results of Patent and Product Search
Upon researching products and patents that exhibited similar functionality, a commercial
project, a patent, and a project that all perform substantially similar functionality as the µd were
discovered. For this search the following websites were utilized: freepatentsonline.com,
google.com, and uspto.gov. The following terms were used for the search: algorithmic, portable,
music, player, dynamic, and generator.
iPod Shuffle – Apple Computer– Released September 12, 2006 (2nd Generation) [4]
The first device that performs a similar function to
our project is Apple’s iPod shuffle. This portable, batterypowered device can store and play a total of 1 GB of music
files. In addition to this, the iPod shuffle has a very
minimalist interface: 5 buttons, a headphone jack, a hold and shuffle switch, and a docking port.
[1] The µd is similar in that it will also be able to play stored music files (utilizing an SD card),
be portable with battery power, and finally have a minimalistic interface. There are differences
between the iPod shuffle and the µd. First, the µd can play music files that contain instructions
for algorithmically generating music based on sensor, while the iPod shuffle can only play static
-1-
ECE 477
Digital Systems Senior Design Project
Fall 2006
music files without interacting with the listener. Also, the footprint of the µd will be much larger
due to monetary and time constraints. Finally, our device will have a different minimalistic
interface utilizing two buttons, one status LED, a headphone jack, a hold switch, an SD card
input, a power input, and various sensor inputs which will be transparent to the user.
United States Patent number 5,496,962, Issued March 5th, 1996, System for Real-Time Music
Composition and Synthesis [2]
This patent describes a system for automatically generating musical compositions in a
variety of genres using a “weighted exhaustive search” process. [2] The system describes how to
generate note-to-note melodic constructions as well as large scale motions. The weighted
exhaustive search process enumerates multiple paths for a composition to take and selects the
best path based on various criteria. The µd will use a method of generating musical compositions
based on musical template files that can be loaded onto the device. The template files in the µd
will provide parameters to a real-time music composition system similar to the aforementioned
patent’s process. However, the µd will have additional run-time system inputs from sensors as
well as having the entire process run on a microcontroller on a portable unit.
Chiclet DSP Music Box project – DSP Music Syndicate [3][5][6]
Finally, there is a project for a portable music generation device
called the “Chiclet”. The webpage describes the project as a “platform
for portable algorithmic and generative music.” [3] The Chiclet utilizes
an Analog Devices ADSP-2187N DSP , FLASH memory, AD1885
audio codec, as well as RS232 for MIDI and downloading files to the
device. [3] Currently, the Chiclet is not available for purchase or production; however, this
project embodies many major functions of the µd project: algorithmic music generation,
portability, and support for serial communication. The major differentiator of the µd project is
the sensor inputs used as input parameters for the algorithmically generated music. The project
leader was contacted but no response was received.
-2-
ECE 477
Digital Systems Senior Design Project
Fall 2006
3.0 Analysis of Patent Liability
To analyze potential patent liability for possible infringing functions, a comparison of the
products, projects, and patents listed in the previous section were examined for literal
infringement as well as infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Literal infringement of a
patent occurs when the offending patent contains each limitation of the construed claims in the
original patent. [7] The doctrine of equivalents protects patent holders from infringement by
making sure that each and every offending patents’ claims are substantially different that the
original patent’s claims. [8]
Apple’s iPod shuffle can playback music files from an onboard digital storage device. In
addition to this it also has a minimalistic control set, as well as the ability to download music
files to the device from a computer. [1] The µd performs these functions differently, and do not
constitute literal infringement nor do they constitute infringement under the doctrine of
equivalents. First, the audio file formats that the µd can playback are a proprietary format based
on the MOD specifications, while the iPod shuffle can play back AAC, protected AAC, MP3,
MP3 VBR, and Audible [1] audio file formats. Second, the minimalistic set of controls varies
from the iPod shuffle to the µd. While the iPod shuffle contains: 5 buttons, a headphone jack, a
hold and shuffle switch, and a proprietary docking port [1], the µd contains two buttons, a status
LED, hold switch, headphone jack, power connector, SD card slot, and various sensors for user
interaction. Based on this analysis the functions performed by the µd are significantly different
than the Apple iPod shuffle.
Patent number 5,496,962 entitled “System for Real-Time Music Composition and
Synthesis” describes a particular process for generating different genres of music on demand.
The process incorporates a user interface to allow initial parameters to be set, followed by
running a weighted exhaustive search to select the best selection for a particular element of the
composition. [2] The µd will not actually have a user interface per se, but rather the initial
parameter input is embodied by the music file templates that can be uploaded onto the device via
the SD card. This is sufficiently different than the process outlined in the patent. The patent also
describes and flowcharts a particular method for generating elements of the composition by
using a weighted exhaustive search. [2] The µd’s algorithmic music generation software hasn’t
been solidified as of yet, as such we shall pursue similar algorithmic that do not infringe on this
patent. In addition to this the patent also indicates that the concept of computer generated music
-3-
ECE 477
Digital Systems Senior Design Project
Fall 2006
is prior art and that the novelty of this patent is the “on demand” generation as well as the
concept of mixing various genres of music together in the compositions. Our device will have
separate files that each contains a music template. That template will describes a particular way
of generating music, and the device will only change templates upon explicit user input only.
Thus, the possibility of literal or doctrine of equivalents infringement does not exist.
Finally, the Chiclet DSP music box is a portable algorithmic music generation device. It
is programmable in the sense that music programs can be loaded onto the device as well. The
Chiclet uses an embedded Analog Devices microcontroller to generate music just like the µd. In
addition to all this, the Chiclet also has expansion ports that allow for sensor inputs and other
external controls. [6] There are few differences between the µd and the Chiclet; however, the µd
is not a literal infringement because of differences in the algorithmic implementation and the
actual hardware used. The possibility of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is
entirely possible.
4.0 Action Recommended
Action should be taken in order to eliminate potential infringements for the µd. First, the
specifications and claims for the µd should be compared more extensively with the Chiclet.
Second, the Chiclet team should be contacted to determine what degree (if any) infringement
exists. Additionally, the µd could make sure that all similar functions are changed in such a way
to eliminate infringement. Finally, lawyers could be contacted to ultimately decide if
infringement exists.
5.0 Summary
In this report, patent and product liability was assessed in great depth. First, a product and
patent search examined potential candidates for infringement. Then based on the definition of
literal infringement, and the doctrine of equivalents, liability was determined. For this report, a
project was found that exhibited many of the concepts of the µd. This potential infringement led
to determining a potential action to be taken in order to minimize the chance of infringement.
-4-
ECE 477
Digital Systems Senior Design Project
Fall 2006
List of References
[1] Apple, “iPod Shuffle”, 2006
http://www.apple.com/ipodshuffle/
[2] Free Patents Online, “System for real-time music composition and synthesis”, 2006
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5496962.html&s_id=5f5e33faedaa4f16bbee5a2e1edcce8f
[3] DSPMusic, “Experiments in Portable Algorithmic and Generative Music”, 2006
http://www.dspmusic.org/
[4] Wikipedia, “iPod Shuffle”, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_shuffle
[5] Music Thing, “The Chiclet DSP Music Box”, October 23rd 2004
http://www.engadget.com/2004/10/23/music-thing-the-chiclet-dsp-music-box/
[6] Art & Artificial Life International Competition, “Concrete Music”, 2004
http://www.fundacion.telefonica.com/at/vida/paginas/v6/emusic.html
[7] The Biojudiciary Project, “Literal Infringement,” 2006
http://www.biojudiciary.org/subpage1.asp?tid=159
[8] The Biojudiciary Project, “Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents,” 2006
http://www.biojudiciary.org/subpage1.asp?tid=160
IMPORTANT: Use standard IEEE format for references, and CITE ALL REFERENCES
listed in the body of your report. Any URLs cited should be “hot” links.
-5-