Ask Michael Burke Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Earlie who wrote (81884)	6/24/2000 9:58:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) of 132070

Earlie, I doubt that "clean room" conditions is a sufficient condition to determine "obviousness" for patent purposes. I remember a case in which some people at Lawrence Livermore filed a patent 2 months before I filed a very similar one, this was as close to ""clean Room" as you can get (Lawrence Livermore is a "secret facility" and no way I could have known their work a priori). Thus, in principle we both came up with the same IP simultaneously and independently. Following the "clean room" theory, this IP was obvious and neither of us should be allowed those claims. Nevertheless, being the late one, I was denied claims that were covered by their claims and allowed only those claims they did not "anticipate". If I wanted to fight, I could have requested that both of our personal records be examined to determine priority (first to invent, rather than first to file), but this is a messy and expensive process and thus I did not fight this one. I trust you heeded to my "warning" on the RMBS thread, the day before the Toshiba announcement (G). That was a fortuitous post. Zeev

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next