许多人都表示，这项专利是乔布斯最关心的一项专利。根据乔布斯自传记载，正是智能屏幕设计，让乔布斯相信苹果公司（Apple）能够生产出一款必将获得成功的手机。

    苹果高级副总裁斯科特•福斯特表示，这项决议可能破坏苹果与三星（Samsung）的谈判。他在初审供词中称：“具体细节我记得不是很清楚。但我记得是史蒂夫这样说过：有些是我们发明的东西。不要模仿。不要剽窃。”

    今年9月苹果诉三星案中，陪审团主要关注五项专利，该专利便是其中之一。当时，谷歌（Google）最大的安卓手机制造商被判赔偿10.5亿美元。

    目前，美国专利与商标局（U.S. Patent and Trademark Office）宣布所谓381号专利无效，不过专利网站FOSS Patents的弗洛里安•穆勒认为，这并不是最终的判决。

    第7,469,381号美国专利第19条要求涉及苹果的“惯性滚屏”效果，但在审判期间则被称为“橡皮筋”效果。福斯特在供词中这样说道：

    “进行滚屏操作滚至末尾时，如果手指继续把文件或图片推出触屏外，松开手后，它们能弹回原位。”

    美国专利和商标局临时判决第19号要求无效，因为之前提交的两项专利已经预测到了这项技术，即路易吉•里拉2003年提交的一份欧洲专利和巴斯•奥丁与斯科特•福斯特等人2010年提交的苹果专利，后面这一点颇具讽刺意味。

    因为奥丁本人就是苹果的用户界面设计师，是他最先向史蒂夫•乔布斯展示，如何让过度滚动的列表像橡皮筋一样弹回来。

    美国专利和商标局为什么能够根据苹果之前的工艺判定这同一家公司的专利无效的呢？这是美国专利制度众多谜题中的一个。笔者弄清真相后将会发布最新发现。

    与此同时，三星也迅速提交了一项动议，请求法院撤销与此相关的侵权判决。

    译者：刘进龙/汪皓

    It was, by several accounts, one of the patents Steve Jobs cared most deeply about.

    According to his biographer, it was the clever screen trick that convinced Jobs that Apple (AAPL) could make a successful cellphone.

    According to Scott Forstall, it was a deal-breaker in the company's negotiations with Samsung. "I don't remember specifics," the Apple senior vice president said in a pre-trial deposition. "I think it was just one of the things that Steve said, here's something we invented. Don't -- don't copy it. Don't steal it."

    And it was one of five patents the Apple v. Samsung jury focused on in September when it hit the leading manufacturer of Google (GOOG) Android phones with $1.05 billion in damages.

    Now, in what FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller calls a "non-final" ruling, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has declared the so-called '381 patent invalid.

    Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No, 7,469,381 covered what Apple called "inertial scrolling," but which came to be known during the trial as the "rubber band" effect. Here's how Forstall described it in his deposition:

    "Say you are scrolling something and you get to the end of it, as your finger descends down you pull it farther away from the edge and then when you let go, it bounces back."

    The USPTO has tentatively ruled that claim 19 is invalid because it was anticipated by two previously filed patents: A European one filed in 2003 by Luigi Lira and -- ironically -- a 2010 Apple patent filed by, among others, Bas Ording and Scott Forstall.

    Ording, it turns out, was the Apple user interface designer who first showed Steve Jobs how to make an over-scrolled list bounce like a rubber band.

    How the USPTO can rule an Apple patent invalid based on the company's own prior art is one of those mysteries of the U.S. patent system. If I figure out how that works I'll post an update.

    Meanwhile, Samsung wasted no time filing a motion asking the court to throw out that part of its infringement judgement.