W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Question about section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy

From: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:36:43 +0100
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
Message-Id: <200701231636.44298.rigo@w3.org>
Art, 

you should state your question to the Patent and Standards Interest 
Group

Best, 

Rigo

On Monday 18 December 2006 15:11, Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Section 4.1 of the W3C Patent Policy [1] says:
>
> [[
> If any claims are made essential by the final Recommendation
> [PROCESS, section 7.1.1] as a result of subject matter not present or
> apparent in the latest public Working Draft [PROCESS, section 7.1.1]
> published within 90 days after the first public Working Draft, the
> participant may exclude these new Essential Claims, and only these
> claims, by using this exclusion procedure within 60 days after the
> publication of the Last Call Working Draft [PROCESS, section 7.4.2].
> After that point, no claims may be excluded. (Note that if material
> new subject matter is added after Last Call, then a new Last Call
> draft will have to be produced, thereby allowing another exclusion
> period for 60 days after that most recent Last Call draft.)
> ]]
>
> Regarding the last sentence in the above paragraph:
>
> 1. Does embedding this sentence in parenthesis exempt the statement
> from being Normative text i.e. is this sentence Informative?
>
> 2. What does "allowing" mean in this context? For example does it
> mean "requiring". More specifically, if a document that has been
> published as a Last Call (LC) Working Draft (WD) is subsequently
> published as either a new WD or another LC WD, will there definitely
> be another new Call for Exclusions?
>
> Regards,
>
> Art Barstow
> ---

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2007 15:36:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 April 2010 00:13:52 GMT