Re: Scope of the patent

Wouldn't telnet then become a clear prior art?

Alastair wrote:
> 
> Although I have not studied the scope of the patent in detail my
> understanding under English Law (which is very similar to US Law) is that
> apps which take over the whole of the browser window would still be covered.
> The part of the window affected just happens to be 100% of it. By using the
> term part they have covered everything down from 100%, Although most of the
> definitions of the word imply that there must be more than one, Websters
> Dictionary has as one of the definitions of the word "an exact divisor of a
> quantity",. Mathematically a division of 1 is still a division.
> 
> Alastair Mitton
> OM International
> +44 (0)20 8840 8788
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Brimley" <steve.brimley@toplev.com>
> To: "'W3C: Public Web Plugins List'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 6:04 PM
> Subject: Scope of the patent
> 
> >
> > I took the time to paraphrase and simplify the claim part of the patent
> > application in question just so that I could understand it myself.
> > As far as I can see from my reading of the application, the patent only
> > affects plugins that occupy part and only part of the browser window, the
> > rest of the window being occupied by the containing html document. Thus
> > applications like Adobe Acrobat Reader that completely take over the
> browser
> > window are not affected.
> > Does anyone disagree with this?
> >
> > I published the paraphrase on
> > http://www.toplev.com:8080/Miscellaneous/Patent.htm.
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve Brimley
> >
> >
> >
> >

-- 
Reza