US 5978773

Summary of U.S. Patent 5,978,773

Title: System and method for using an ordinary article of commerce to access a remote computer

Assignee: The original assignee of the patent is Neomedia Technologies, Inc.

Inventors: The inventors of the patented system and method are Frank C. Hudetz and Peter R. Hudetz.

Filing Date: The patent application was filed on October 3, 1995.

Issue Date: U.S. Patent 5,978,773 was issued on November 2, 1999.

Abstract: The patent describes a system and method for accessing remote computers on a network by using identification codes found on common commercial products. In one embodiment, a database links Uniform Product Code (UPC) numbers to Internet network addresses (URLs). A user can enter a product's UPC, either manually or by scanning the barcode, to retrieve the corresponding URL from the database. This URL is then used to access a relevant internet resource related to the product.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 5,978,773 contains four independent claims (claims 1, 12, 22, and 33), which define the core of the invention. In plain language, these claims cover the following concepts:

Claim 1: This claim protects an apparatus for accessing a remote computer using an article of commerce. The key components are:

• A machine-readable code (like a barcode) on a product that contains a standardized identification number (like a UPC).
• An input device (like a barcode scanner) that reads this number and creates a corresponding signal.
• A database that stores a list of these identification numbers and their associated network addresses (like URLs).
• This database, upon receiving the signal from the input device, provides the network address linked to the scanned identification number.
• A local computer (local host) is then able to use this provided network address to connect to and communicate with a specific remote computer on a network.

Claim 12: This claim is directed at an apparatus specifically for generating a network address using an article of commerce. It includes:

• A means for creating a signal that corresponds to a standardized product identification number found on an article of commerce.
• A database containing a collection of these product identification numbers, with each number linked to at least one network address.
• A control system that takes the signal, looks up the identification number in the database, and retrieves the associated network address.
• A local computer receives this network address from the database and uses it to communicate with a remote computer on the network.

Claim 22: This claim outlines a method for generating a network address. The steps of this method are:

• Creating a link in a computer's memory between at least part of a standardized product identification number and a specific network address.
• Providing a commercial product that has this identification number encoded on it.
• Reading at least a portion of the identification number from the product.
• Using this number to retrieve the linked network address from the computer's memory.

Claim 33: This claim describes another version of the apparatus for accessing a remote computer. It is very similar to Claim 1, but with a slightly different arrangement of the components. It includes:

• A machine-readable code on a product with a standard identification number.
• An input device to read the code and generate a signal.
• A database that links these identification numbers to network addresses and can provide the correct address when it receives the signal.
• A local computer that receives the network address from the database.
• This local computer can then use the provided network address to communicate with a chosen remote computer on a network.

It should be noted that while a direct search of the 2026 CAFC dockets for "5978773" did not yield specific results, the patent portfolio of Neomedia Technologies, Inc., has been subject to litigation and public scrutiny, including being a target of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's "Patent Busting Project." This broader context suggests that the validity and enforcement of the patent and its related family members have been matters of dispute.