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

RE: prior art and obvious.

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:55:57 -0400
To: "'web-plugins'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009a01c37173$14e58630$550ffea9@rms>

This is a question more for Microsoft.  I haven't heard them make this
argument in their lawsuit.  Although Microsoft did mumble something
about Mike Doyle of Eolas hearing about their future plans for OLE about
the time he said he invented Weblets.  Not sure what article this was


-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alex Rivero
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:46 PM
To: web-plugins
Subject: prior art and obvious.

  I believe most of the things we are speaking about are not
straight prior art, but they can -should- be used to claim
obviousness. As far as I understand, if it can be showed,
based on prior inventions, that the patent claims are
obvious for any engineer, then the patent is invalid.
Is this the plan?
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 12:57:07 UTC

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