From: Tomas L. Byrnes (no email)
Date: Sat Feb 02 2008 - 23:40:12 EST
ATT has no reason to pull their application, what needs to happen is
that the publisher of the prior art contact the USPTO.
If ATT willingly failed to note the prior art in their app, that may be
a problem, but it isn't their duty to report ALL prior art, just the
stuff they know about.
IANAL, but I have filed some patents, and reviewed a bunch more.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:58 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: Ben Butler; Paul Vixie;
> Subject: Re: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
>
> On Feb 2, 2008 3:39 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <> wrote:
>
> > The bigger issue with all these approaches is that they run
> afoul of a
> > patent applied for by AT&T:
> >
> >
> 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=2
> > 00
> > 60031575&OS=20060031575&RS=20060031575
> >
> > USPTO App Number 20060031575
>
> Somene from ATT may want to consider pulling this patent
> application since it seems to fail on prior art...
>
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/soricelli.html
>
> presented by a juniper employee (Joe Soricelli ) and Wayne
> Gustavus from Verizon. IANAL though...
>
|
|
|