Does this patent application claim almost the opposite of what Microsoft have
been saying it does?
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=684020.APN.&OS=APN/684020&RS=APN/684020
In claim 22 it looks to me like SPF "classic" would fall inside the claim,
except possibly that "a plurality of parameter values of the electronic message
to attempt to identify an actual sending side network address corresponding to
a sending computer system" means that if you only look at one source of the
sending side address, you are not inside the claim.
The examination of multiple headers (parameters) including the ones usually
included in discussions of PRA appears to apply not to the determination of the
purported sending domain, but to the determination of the actual sending side
network address, e.g IP address. This is opposite to my understanding of what
has been under discussion.
It looks like, when they use the term "network address" they mean something
like an IP address and not something like an email address, url or fqdn. This
is fine, but it does lead me to the conclusions stated above. If "network
address" means something like an email address, url or fqdn, then I don't know
how to interpret the thing.
What am I missing here?
One more point, the filing date is October 10, 2003. I think that means, if
prior art is going to kill any part of this, the prior art must be dated before
the invention date and the earliest invention date is October 10, 2002. Why?
Because you have only one year from invention date to file the patent and prior
art is going to have to be before invention date. (I am not completely sure on
this, but the logic is going to be something like this.
Mark Holm