Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (20554)	3/30/2007 2:08:23 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 46821

The hard part about analyzing patents years after-the-fact is what's now well known and/or accepted was not always that way. I think (and maybe someone can chime in if they know for sure) it's entirely possible to grant a patent where every claim (standing alone) is known or otherwise disclosed, and you only have to string together subsets of those claims in a way that has not been done before, that is novel, and that is not obvious. The pieces (individual claims) of the patents-in-question sure seem like they were all known, so it would seem it has to be the stringing together in a unique, novel, non-obvious way that is at issue.