The Eolas-Microsoft case--patent ending?

TalkBack 22 of 22:

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Nature of the USPTO rejection of Eolas patent claims

Although not mentioned in the story, the USPTO rejection was for obviousness (35 USC 103), not for anticipation (35 USC 102), as had been advocated in the filing made by W3C under 37 CFR 1.501 (which brought up the Raggett-I and Raggett-II references). The obviousness rejection utilized the admitted prior art, the art mentioned in the other 501 filing (on HTML+), and Raggett-I and -II for some claims, and still more prior art for other claims. The rejections thus are complex and may be attacked in a number of ways.

Posted by: Buckyball   Posted on: 03/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• VMware Infrastructure: A Guide to Bottom-Line Benefits VMware Frustrated by the costs of maintain ever larger data centers?or building ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now