Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

["John Berryhill Ph.D. J.D." <john@johnberryhill.com>]

From: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>


> John, are you sure about 12/99? I thought it was 2000 as well.

If you take a look at the first paragraph of the application, it states:

"[0001] This application is a continuation of and claims priority from U.S.
Provisional Patent Application No. 60/245,102, filed Nov. 1, 2000, and U.S.
Provisional Patent Application No. 60/248,341, filed Nov. 13, 2000. "

There are several things going on here.  First of all, a US patent
application can claim the filing date of an earlier-filed provisional
application, so long as the regular application is filed within a year of the
provisional.  That was done here.

There were two provisional applications filed in November 2000.  We do not
know at this time to what extent those provisionals may or may not have
adequately supported the claimed material of the later US applications.  But
for the purpose of focussing efforts productively, it is conservative to
assume that the support was there.

So, that assumption provides the pending application with an effective filing
date of November 2000.

Now, there are a couple of categories of things that qualify as prior art.
One category would be to show that the invention was known and used by others
prior to the invention thereof by the applicant.  However, the date of
invention is not objectively knowable on the basis of evidence available to
us.

The most reliable category of prior art are things that were in public use,
published, or on sale more than one year prior to the effective filing date
of the application.  That critical date is objectively knowable to us at this
time, and that date is November 1, 1999.

Additionally, everyone ought to know that during prosecution of a US patent
application, anyone connected with the application (the applicant, the owner,
etc.) has a duty to submit copies of relevant prior art information of which
they are aware.  There's no duty to go out and look for stuff, but assuming
they are reading this list, then they would do well to submit copies of
relevant archives that are posted here.  This will help them obtain a
stronger patent, as will any attempt to submit material to the patent office
at this time, since they will be the only ones involved in arguing around
such material and/or amending the claims ever so slightly to avoid a
rejection based on such material.



--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html