Apple updates patent for touchscreen device

Remember that Apple patent that we eyed back in early September? You know, the one that patented the merging of various electronic devices into a single gadget? Well, it's back and better than ever before -- it's an update to U.S. patent application Serial No. 11/367,749, and is entitled "Multi-Functional Hand-Held Device." So how's this patent different from the last time? It's not, really, but it provides a fair bit more detail written in that cryptic legalistic prose that we've come to know and love; it describes and displays the new interface, which may include various triggers along the edge of the bezel: "By way of example, the visual guides 180 in FIG. 4 include 'Menu,' 'Power,' 'Left,' 'Select,' 'Right,' etc. It will be appreciated that the visual guides 180 and their arrangement depicted in FIG. 4 are only exemplary. More or fewer visual guides 180 may be provided, and the size of the visual guides 180 can be larger or smaller than the scale depicted in FIG. 4." Further, there's a new portrait and landscape option described, handy for viewing photos or watching episodes of "Lost" while on the bus. But even the music-playing core of the iPod will get a makeover, coming in with an on-screen time slider, volume control, and other options that seem to be user-defined and customizable. We've still got questions as we did last time concerning prior art, but perhaps these newer details fill in the gaps. All in all, it would appear that the true video iPod (with possible cell phone or GPS add-ons) is still on the drawing board at this point, and it remains to be seen how these illustrations translate into reality. We've got some more patent diagrams of that portrait/landscape view and of the new "now playing" interface on the flip side, hot off the patent filing presses.

[Via MacNN]

[Scott @ Oct 26th 2006 11:43PM]

Cool. So that's how they'll keep fingerprints off the screen; touchframe instead of touchscreen. Very nice (+ less expensive!)

[Silvia @ Oct 26th 2006 11:46PM]

great... this will take forever to come out probably... i should just go with the zune! NOT... forget the zune i'm waiting for the ipod... like i was gonna even buy the lame zune.

[A5-14 @ Oct 26th 2006 11:53PM]

Guys,

This is a Patent application, not a patent. There is a big difference. A patent application is submitted by an inventor to the Patent Office. The Patent office reviews the application to determine if the inventor has a useful, novel, and nonobvious invention. As a matter of course, the application will be published after 18 months. This does not mean that Apple has a patent yet. There still is much more for Apple and the USPTO to do before this application would be issued as a patent.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Oct 27th 2006 12:35AM]

Actually Apple has filed numerous patent like this for some time now. Did you that a company can release a product into the market even without a the patent being published. If they don't get the patent in the end, it will probably just mean that other companies could copy the idea easier. If they do, then anyone who does something similar will either have to stop making what they are making, or agree to a deal that Apple may set for them. The magsafe power adapter was released as a product while the patent was still pending.

[brendan Sheehan jnr @ Oct 27th 2006 12:46AM]

Oh, and i'd like to ad that given the complexity of this patent, Apple should get a patent for this quite easily, and that contrary to other people comments this is a hell of a lot different to the iRiver Clix thing. The iRiver clix was not the first product ever that has had a few though sensitive areas, i.e. 4 on the bezel of a device. This brings something different to the table in that the whole bezel in touch-sensitive and pressure-sensitive, and can change location and function of touch sensitive areas depending on the funtion chosen be the user from the multi-funcional device. The device also allows bezel dragging and scrolling. It's not just four touch sensors, it's wholly more complicated than that.

[rob @ Oct 27th 2006 12:11AM]

Whether you believe me or not, I don't care, but I wrote an email to Apple to do this hardware stuff years ago. I didn't think of a frame though, just a scroll bar on the side instead of a space consuming wheel and some buttons on the edges.

[doctorSpoc @ Oct 27th 2006 1:49AM]

also if you get the patent and if other copied it in the interim you can demand that they pay you reasonable compensation retro actively to the time the patent was filed, not the time it was approved


how can you hold the unit... iPods have a curved edge between the back and the sides and sharp edges between the top and the sides.. and the soft buttons are on the top.. so there shouldn't be any trouble holding it and not pressing buttons.. the buttons are not on the side.

this is a little more substantial than the iRiver.. for one, the buttons and their position change in relationship to what's on the screen should be enough to get a patent even if iRiver patented what they did..

[H?n @ Oct 27th 2006 5:23AM]

Yep, its more in the line of what spectronic did on ther phines in the early 90-ties. Nothing new actually, somthing like in the line of what I thought about when I saw the the screen click-wheel. Don't touch the screen use the sides instead. Plenty of room to drag and click there. If I only had the money I would have patented it.

I have a few extras up my sleeve when it comes to navigation when it comes to side navigation like this, something things that are not in the sketches from apple...

[Craig @ Oct 27th 2006 1:13AM]

brendan, i'm sure you're missing the point. it doesn't matter whether it's a patent, patent application, doodle on a napkin. it just gives some insight to the control scheme of the upcoming video ipod

[ConceptVBS @ Oct 27th 2006 1:22AM]

iRiver clix rip off.

[LittleJoe @ Oct 27th 2006 1:24AM]

Dont get me wrong... this is a pretty cool setup. But how the hell are you supposed to hold it without inadvertantly hitting one of the billion touch sensitive areas???

[Chris @ Oct 27th 2006 6:38AM]

There's probably going to be a "hold" button on the side...same as there always was.

[alex barus @ Oct 27th 2006 1:35AM]

Well...We're wishing a fond farewell to Scroll Wheel 'button' then !

[doctorSpoc @ Oct 27th 2006 1:49AM]

based on Apple's recent patent filing.. when the asked Jobs if he was worried about the Zune.. it probably took everything he could muster to stop himself from breaking out laughing... the Zune with it's outdated click wheel is going to look like an outdated relic.. something like an broke down 8 track deck next to the next gen iPod..

[jmeyer @ Oct 27th 2006 2:19AM]

i love apple, but who else is sick of hearing about apple patents?

[MPG @ Oct 27th 2006 3:28AM]

"i love apple, but who else is sick of hearing about apple patents?"

I'm not only sick of it, it's also stupid. I used to work in the research department of a major mobile phone manufacturer, and we churned out patents just like this one on a weekly basis. What do you think how many went into products? Roughly 5%, I'd guess. Most of the time, a patent is just a means to protect yourself for the future, just in case you ever want to produce a product like that. In fact, most of the time it's not even about wanting to have a product like this yourself, but about having a large patent portfolio that you can exchange with other companies in lieu of license payments.

So the point I am trying to make is: A patent application very often has NOTHING to do with a company's product plans.

[Micha @ Oct 27th 2006 4:38AM]

It doesn't matter whether it's a patent or patent application. It just further confirms that Apple will sooner or later offer a device with a 640x480 screen that gives you a better viewing experience for the higher resolution iTunes movies.

This is not the 6G iPod IMHO but an addition to the top end of the iPod line-up. Why? Because the full screen and advanced control system are clearly a high-end feature. Apple can charge more (probably 449 or 499 depending on HDD size.) Also, I don't think that Apple will stop offering an iPod with a physical control wheel. This still is one of the defining features of the concept and just makes using it so easy. The new device can no longer be controlled with just one hand.

I'm only wondering whether it will have WiFi. Clearly Wifi would make the large screen useful for Web browsing but without a touch screen it would be difficult to input text.

[JT @ Oct 27th 2006 5:23AM]

It's quite clever to reduce production costs on a screen that feels touch-sensitive but that's in fact surrounded by a touch pad... nice...

[Buck Jones III @ Oct 27th 2006 6:26AM]

Yeah, the is not going to work in the real world. You will need two hands to operate the device and be very careful where you touch or massage the pressure points. Nice try... iRiver Clix has it right with one hand control and ease of use.

[A5-14 @ Oct 27th 2006 6:40AM]

Brendan,

You can't equate complexity with the probability that an inventor will get a patent. You have no idea what the scope of prior art is. That's what patent prosecution is for. There are other facets but I won't bore people with too much patent minutae.

My post was simply to point out that trumpeting a this as a patent is incorrect. Getting an idea of what Apple plans is fine. I just find the title for this blog entry to be incorrect (there is no patent, and there may be no patent).

BTW, Thank you Engadget for a great site.

[richard Cooley @ Oct 27th 2006 9:22AM]

I would be very surprised if Apple came out with a device as complicated as described. Apple's know for simplification.

[doctorSpoc @ Oct 27th 2006 10:10AM]

i think the touch screen filing was interesting from a interaction point of view but didn't solve the biggest unsolved problem with touch screens.. dirty smudged screens from greazy piggies... heard talk of fingers above the screen but don't think the wizard magic wand waving thing is going to fly.. this is a solution that simply just works

complexity.. it not that much more complex.. has 4 smaller, linear sensors similarly functioning to the click wheel.. and the software needs to be a little smarter.. well not really even the click wheel function was synced with what's on screen... hardware wise it's not really more complex... nah, i don't buy the more complex argument it's not really..

[PEZ @ Oct 27th 2006 11:20AM]

copying the clix.

[Tom @ Oct 27th 2006 11:43AM]

Apple 'solved' the problem of touch screen smudging and scartching with those patents they filed for a 'none-touch touchscreen', where to scroll you moved your finger round in a circle just above the scroll wheel image, and only touched the screen itself in order to click - much like a Wacom tablet.

This idea is in my opinion, crap, as it makes the device hard to hold and use correctly, and does away with a lot of the simplicity that makes the ipod what it is. I am glad that I realise that patents (and indeed, patent applications) have relatively little bearing on a companies actual output, and I hope apple go with the none-touch variety. That I would buy. This, no thanks.

[Billy Bob @ Oct 27th 2006 7:14PM]

This is never going to be a product, at least not how it is in the drawing. First of all, Steve Jobs specifically said no to a power button on the first Ipod. Secondly, the visual interface is WAY too crowded for apple