W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > August 2003

RE: Prior Art

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:22:22 -0400
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017001c36f34$6b9475e0$550ffea9@rms>

Yes finding prior art is extremely prudent.  Presumably Microsoft has
already done this search.

My defintion of a browser is a program that displays a file on a
computer screen.  

The patent also talks about hypermedia documents which sounds like files
that contain clickable links in them.

When it comes to patents, its important to use very broad definitions
for terms.  Microsoft Word for example could be considered a browser.
People often use Word to read files that people send them.  Many times
these files are supplied across a network from a file server to a client
computer which is running Word.  As a side benefit, Word even allows
people to change the files they are browsing. ;-) 

So it might be possible to find a word processor program to overturn the
'906 patent.  Does anyone know of a word processor that was on the
market before Oct. 17, 1994 (or better yet, before Oct. 17, 1993) that
supported embedded files? 


-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:02 PM
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Subject: Re: Prior Art

HI Richard,

Let me ask you, does this patent (or software patents in general) cover
the platform or the specific client technology claimed.  It specifically
mentioned browsers.   But will it cover GUI clients that are not
to browser activity and offers the similar technology?

Like I said, the idea of "hitting a tag" regardless of the language, to
install,  load and  activate a process on a remote client machine has
around since the 80s.   Security issues restricted its progress until
Microsoft opened Pandora's box with OLE.

If the patent is broad and encapsulates all products and systems
of platform, server software or client software, then there is a
for many existing systems, old or new.  From my standpoint,  an
to present prior art is prudent.


Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 3:29 PM
Subject: RE: Prior Art

> Hi Hector,
> Lots of good information in your post.  BBS software looks like a good
> place to look for prior art.  X-Windows and Apollo applications are
> another.
> The thing to keep in mind is that we need to find a product which
> matches point-by-point the claims made in the '906 patent.
> Presumably Microsoft has already done an extensive prior art search.
> wonder what their results have been......
> Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 2:23 PM
> To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: Prior Art
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 16:22:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:03 UTC