spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Re: Microsoft's Updated Statement about IPR Claimed in <draft-ietf-marid-core-03.txt> and <draft-ietf-marid-pra-00.txt> in Combination

2004-09-16 12:52:16
From: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 2:26 PM

<...>

They won't be rejected for prior art.  I can't think of the  last time
a tech patent was rejected for prior art (not that I'm in the know at
the USPTO - I am not not *not* a patent lawyer - but when was the last
time anyone here heard of a technology patent app. being rejected for
prior art?)

I had one application initially rejected for obviousness due to _similarity_
to prior art, but we ultimately showed it was novel and all the claims were
allowed.  I think the examiner just wanted us to make a more compelling
argument, which is their role.  That was a long time ago.  Do you read those
claims the same way I did?

--

Seth Goodman


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>