- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 13:28:33 -0400
- To: public-push-pag@w3.org
Available at
http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html
Text version:
Push API Patent Advisory Group Teleconference
06 Aug 2013
See also: [2]IRC log
[2] http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-irc
Attendees
Present
Wendy, Eduardo Fullea, Plh, Larry Rosen, Mike Champion,
chaals
Regrets
DougT, Yves
Chair
wseltzer
Scribe
plh
Contents
* [3]Topics
1. [4]Claims Analysis, progress
2. [5]Next meeting
* [6]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 06 August 2013
<wseltzer> [reminder, our wiki is:
[7]https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki ]
[7] https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki
<scribe> scribe: plh
Claims Analysis, progress
Wendy: see
[8]https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki/Claims_Analysis
... plh and chaals pulled out the independent claims
... and noted the equivalence between EU and US patents
... still leaves us with 16 claims
... and no one has looked at the JP patents yet
... and thank you to Larry for sending information on file
wrapper and additional information
[8] https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki/Claims_Analysis
plh: is that in the wiki?
Wendy: not yet
<scribe> ACTION: plh to add
[9]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul/
0006.html in the wiki [recorded in
[10]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action02]
[9]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul/0006.html
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Add
[11]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul
/0006.html in the wiki [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due
2013-08-13].
[11]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul/0006.html
Wendy: next step is to review the independent claims against
the draft
... in conjunction, re communication with Nokia
... spoke with ? from Nokia
... who expressed interest in cooperating in the PAG work
... and that suggests that Nokia will be responsive to
questions
... even if they're engaging in litigations
... I asked: do they continue to assert all 9 patents against
the latest version of the document
... and Nokia will look into identifying the essential claims
... if we have additional questions for them, feel free to
bring those up
... comments?
plh: I thought Moz will look into the analysis of the claims
Wendy: Doug sent regrets but will follow up on the status
... we should get quick feedback from Moz on what they might be
able to do
... so we don't end up blocking on them for nothing
... I'll ask them this week
... in the meantime, it won't be a waste time for others to do
the same
<wseltzer> ACTION: wseltzer to follow-up with Mozilla re claims
analysis [recorded in
[12]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Follow-up with Mozilla re claims
analysis [on Wendy Seltzer - due 2013-08-13].
Eduardo: you classified the unique patents. to what extend did
you look at them? claims may be different...
Chaals: I didn't look claim by claim
... the statements are basically the same however
... I do think it's important to go claim by claim however
... it would be useful to have links to each patent document
<scribe> ACTION: Charles to add links to the wiki to each
patent document [recorded in
[13]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Add links to the wiki to each
patent document [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-08-13].
<wseltzer> [Links to the patents are in the Charter:
[14]http://www.w3.org/2013/03/push-pag-charter.html ]
[14] http://www.w3.org/2013/03/push-pag-charter.html
Eduardo: ok, so we still need to analysis the overlaps
... i didn't take the time to compare them yet. but with
regards to EU
... 016, 723 and 375 are divisional applications but claims may
be different
Chaals: so some might updates to other ones...
Eduardo: starting from 375, there was a divisional patent which
is 723, and then 016
... so, even if the text is similar, it's important to look at
the patents
wendy: absolutely, that's a useful reminder
... we need to look deeper into the claims
Larry: the claims have to be interpreted in light of the spec
... do they all start with the same spec, and generated
additional claims?
Eduardo: I didn't dive into the patents, but it seems some of
them are starting from same doc and claims are slightly
different
Larry: then it would be reasonnable to assume that they could
get similar claims
... but don't know if they didn't
Wendy: you're right, claims are only a place to start
Chaals: some of the claims seem broad.
Larry: are you suggesting that we focus on the US patents?
Chaals: not at all
... the question is: is it better claims that do bear on the
spec, or is it useful to begin to pick up claims that have no
bearing?
... from which side should we approach the eliminitation?
Larry: we go through the list, one by one.
... if one of the claims isn't in the spec, you can ignore the
entire patent
Wendy: we can edge descriptions to say "possibly applicable" or
"not applicable", we're not at the point of reaching conclusion
yet. useful to have some tentative in the wiki.
Next meeting
Wendy: August 20th
... same time.
Chaals: regrets from me
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Charles to add links to the wiki to each patent
document [recorded in
[15]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: plh to add
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul
/0006.html in the wiki [recorded in
[17]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: wseltzer to follow-up with Mozilla re claims
analysis [recorded in
[18]http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action03]
[16]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul/0006.html
[End of minutes]
Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 17:28:35 UTC