[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
One would speculate as the those interviewed to that
such a patent would not stand up to a review. That
assumption was made for the EOLAS patent too and it
has been upheld under review.
Having read the EOLAS decision, two things were clear
to me: lack of understanding of patent law and the
nature of patent review is pandemic. While technical
understanding is required, the reviewer is reviewing the
essential claims as they obtain to the precise description
of the innovation with respect only to the approved prior
art. In other words, it is a paper chase among a specific
set of submitted documents. It does not consider any other
prior art or circumstances. Second, and following, it is
very important that anyone seeking a review obtain prior
art that clearly supports refutation of the claims, and that
means perhaps invalidating industry mythology or OTHER claims
made by other parties. The EOLAS review is quite illuminating
both with respect to the nature of the review and to the
selection of the approved prior art. Note how much emphasis
is given to the precision of description in the essential
claims with respect to a non-terminating program embedded
within another program, and to the uniqueness of the class
of software sometimes called a 'web browser'. Had the
claims or art varied, it is possible the decision might
have been different. Given the submissions, in my opinion,
the review concluded correctly even if at odds with
popular perceptions or privately held knowledge.
Fair disclosure: the reviewer of EOLAS is a personal
friend. No, he cannot respond to arguments from me or
others with regards to that decision. All statements
made above are purely mine, do not reflect considered
or obtained legal analysis, the position of the reviewer
private, public or professional nor are they the position
of my employer.
len
From: ian.graham@utoronto.ca [mailto:ian.graham@utoronto.ca]
Here we go again -- I saw this in a ZD article:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5905949.html?tag=nl.e589
The article references the specific patents....
|
