Rod Gilchrist wrote:
In patents claim 1 is the most general of
all the claims.
Although it is often the case that the first claim is the most
general, this is not a requirement. Claims come in two types: Dependent
and Independent. The dependent claims rely on earlier claims, the
Independent claims do not.
The specific patent being discussed, USPatent #6321267, has more
than one independent claim. They are: 1, 29, 33,46, 52, 55, 60, and 64.
There is no requirement that claim 1 be more general than any of the
others. Even is such a requirement existed, it would be largely
meaningless since "generality" is something that can't be measured in an
absolute sense. The "generality" of a claim can only become apparent
once the patent is actually applied.
It should also be noted that even if an independent claim is
found to be improperly granted, a dependent claim based on the
invalidated claim can still be held to be valid. Proving that the
independent claims are invalid is usually very useful, however, it isn't
sufficient to eliminate the entire patent. Things are not that simple...
bob wyman
-----Original Message-----
From: asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org [mailto:asrg-admin(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On
Behalf Of Rod
Gilchrist
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:10 PM
To: asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: [Asrg] Time for the ISPs to fight back!)
David F. Skoll wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Clifton Royston wrote:
People might want to look at the recently-implemented Postfix sender
verification feature in current snapshot releases.
This technique is patented and assigned to ESCOM Corporation, in US
Patent #6,321,267 (see the section "Active User Testing")
The patent was filed 23 November 1999; if you think you have prior art,
I encourage you to publish it.
I don't think this patent is particularly relevent.
I've attached claim 1 below. In patents claim 1 is the most general of
all the claims.
In order to violate this patent you must have all three of the described
filters (and I suspect,
given the phrasing, exactly these three and no more).
More normal language would refer to 'a plurality of filters including
but not limited to
the following'.
So if you just leave out the dial up reverse connection detection (which
probably isn't
relevent any more in any case) you aren't violating this patent IMO.
- Rod
1. A system for detecting and selectively preventing reception of an
electronic message to a local message transfer agent (MTA), the
electronic message having an address identifying a sender and
transferred over a connection from a remote host, the system comprising:
a dialup filter determining whether the connection is a dialup
connection and, if the connection is a dialup connection, terminating
the connection;
a relay filter determining whether the remote host is an open relay and,
if the remote host is an open relay, terminating the connection; and,
a user filter verifying whether the sender of the electronic message is
authorized and, if the sender of the electronic message is not
authorized, terminating the connection;
wherein, said system establishes communication over the connection
between said remote host and the local MTA if said system determines
that the connection is not a dialup connection, said relay filter
determines that the remote host is not an open relay and said user
filter verifies the sender as authorized.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg