From: Christopher Morrow (no email)
Date: Sun Feb 03 2008 - 01:16:13 EST
On Feb 2, 2008 11:40 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <> wrote:
> 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.
>
sweetness, hopefully Wayne or Verizon (they have lots of lawyers) or
Juniper will ping USPTO... or not, I suppose I don't care directly
anymore :)
> 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...
> >
>
|
|
|