Slashdot Mirror

This is an innocent question. If the OSS community is ready to debunk these patents, do we really need Microsoft to reveal which of the 235 patents/infringements they're talking about? Couldn't we start a site/database that organizes all of Microsoft's patents and start documenting prior art and such for each. The patents themselves aren't hidden :

Microsoft's patents (6723 patents)
Microsoft's UI patent (155 patents)
(for example)

Why not start debunking the FUD to prove how spurious their claims are? Is it because this would be too much work? (Admittedly, 6723 >> 235)

A search on http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.ht ml for "microsoft" in the Assignee Name field turns up 6723 hits, which is less than I expected! And many of which are design patents, which probably wouldn't be relevant for this exercise. Reviewing that many patents and looking for prior art shouldn't be difficult for a large distributed team if enough people can be persuaded to read and decipher patents. (What language is it that patents are written in, anyway? It looks kind of English, but seems designed to convey minimal information with maximal obtusity.)

If enough people were willing to launch a pre-emptive strike by documenting prior art behind MSFT's patents, I think I would support the effort. As others have suggested, it might be a more focused use of energy to wait until MSFT makes some claims with real substance behind them... but there's something appealing about the thought of going through each of their patents one by one and dissecting them... :)

Chap. 28, Sec. 271.: Infringement of patent
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention,
within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.

Chap. 29, Sec. 281.: Remedy for infringement of patent
A patentee shall have remedy by civil action for infringement of his patent.

It sounds like a fair number of these infringements might be describing design patents, which, like trademarks, are intended to prevent consumers from confusing two products.

Oh, and IANAL.

Is this one of the patent breeches. It sure sounds a lot like SUDO to me bit then again I've never been to lawyer school.

'Sudo was first conceived and implemented by Bob Coggeshall and Cliff Spencer around 1980 at the Department of Computer Science at SUNY/Buffalo'

--

United States Patent 6,775,781 Aug 2004

Administrative security systems and methods

We claim: .. a method comprising:

.. executing an administrative security process under the administrative privilege level;

Erm, no patent minefield here... it's not a patent, it's a patent application filed 18 months ago and now published.

You can find out just how far the application has got by going here:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair

and searching for this publication no.:
20070072676

Happy patent application watching!

Just take a look at this one, for instance.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=4&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Microsoft. ASNM.&s2=%22user+interface%22.TI.&OS=AN/Microsoft+ AND+TTL/%22user+interface%22&RS=AN/Microsoft+AND+T TL/%22user+interface%22

There is not a judge in the world, much less a jury, that could possibly even comprehend the text of this patent.

And there is no way in hell that the patent examiner could possibly have comprehended what the patent application was about.

for a laugh i searched to see if patent search for "blue screen of death" would return a microsoft hit. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=%22blue+sc reen+death%22&OS=%22blue+screen+death%22&RS=%22blu e+screen+death%22 it did.

MS has 155 patents with the word "User Interface" in the title. Have a look:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Microsoft&FIELD1=ASNM& co1=AND&TERM2=user+interface&FIELD2=TI&d=PTXT

What sucks is that yesterday they only had 151...

Go to the PTO web site here

Type serial number 09318447

Single click on "search".

Single click on "image file wrapper".

If someone braver than me wants to host the PDF, feel free.

Querying the USPTO Patent Database returns 37,131 patents with Microsoft's name on them. So, with 235 alleged infringements, Linux allegedly infringes on less than 1% of Microsoft's patents. The way they make out that FLOSS programmers are thieves running rough-shod over their intellectual property, I would have expected more than that.

Querying for IBM, turns up 91,006 patents with IBM's name on them. My guess is that Microsoft probably infringes on more than 1% of IBM's patents. Oracle has 5,584 with their name on them (I threw that one in as a bonus just for reading this far!).

So, for Microsoft, it's either tell what patents are infringed on to allow the alleged infringing parties to mitigate Microsoft's damages and have them proved obvious, prior-art'ed or simply worked around OR don't tell and have them invalidated for failure to protect them. Hmm, nothing works very well. Also, this activity will generate a lot of negative press. But, they have to protect the value of their IP as embodied by US patents or risk lawsuits by their shareholders. What a shame... Live by the sword, die by the sword, huh?

Here are the patents everyone!

Find the ones that Microsoft claims have been infringed upon.

No software patent is valid, ever IMHO.

Microsoft, for credibility will have to produce a detailled list of said patent violations (and eventually a list of specific OSS application that they think are infringing).

You can search the USPTO for Microsoft patents. I suggest that you then register with the Peer to Patent Project. If Microsoft decides to go to war, it will be fun to watch them get dismantled groklaw-style.

1) Most if not all patents on the list cannot be enforced (e.g. sudo, xml, smilies, content syndication, rss, jpeg, tabbed-browsing, etc, etc, etc.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot be enforced." That the patent is sufficiently flawed that the courts will eventually find the patent should not have been issued due to obviousness and/or prior art? That there are no targets available for litigation over use of the patent-infringing software? That if they attempt to sue the available target(s), the consequences will be worse for Microsoft than not suing?

I can easily see obviousness and prior art taking out 200 of the 250 or so without much trouble, and perhaps another 25 after protracted court fights, but I don't think it will be all of them. Finding litigation targets is trivial under US law, since as others have noted infringement suits may be directed against users of the infringing technology as well as producers.

The potentially pyrrhic nature of this litigation is possible, but it may be more a case of MAD. Consider as an example USP # 7,213,202 (applied for in 1999, granted this month), which looks to patent style sheets (or something similar). Assuming it stands (since much of the prior art is Microsoft's), the option becomes simple: everyone without Microsoft licenses must stop using and supporting CSS. Safari gets a co-license deal after some litigation, Firefox and Opera get hosed. The problem is... IE sucks. And there are enough businesses out there concerned enough with security that they may collectively decide to let the standard die, rather than be trapped into IE. But this is bad for everyone: CSS is useful.

So, I ask again: what do you mean by "cannot be enforced"?

I think you are confusing patents with copyright. While specific code, i.e. SCO, is copyrightable and could be changed to effect the same thing in a different fashion, patents protect ideas. For example, a screen-saver is a patentable idea. To create a method in which the display shows random or non-random patterns in order to avoid screen burn-in. It would be very difficult to create an alternative to an established idea such as this. So, for all those OSS projects who try to emulate or make similar a working environment to that of the Windows operating systems or Office application suite, there is a good chance that user interface patents are being infringed upon. And considering how often OSS developers visit http://www.uspto.gov/ or do a patent search while "creating something new" I think it is very possible that a good number of patents are being infringed, and people should consider legal counsel.

Now, is this a stunt by Microsoft in order to further some agenda? Time will tell. However in the meantime, it would be wise to explore and understand what options are available to blunt a very real and possible menace to how OSS operates.

Actually:

35 USC 101 requires that patents be awarded only for useful inventions.

35 USC 112 requires that the disclosure of a patent enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention (without undue experimentation).

So, if a patent has been issued that claims something that does not work (is completely useless) or would require undue experimentation to figure out from the patent, then the patent is invalid. Many patents are invalidated on this basis. Contact your friendly local patent counsel for a real legal opinion.

Actually:

35 USC 101 requires that patents be awarded only for useful inventions.

35 USC 112 requires that the disclosure of a patent enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention (without undue experimentation).

So, if a patent has been issued that claims something that does not work (is completely useless) or would require undue experimentation to figure out from the patent, then the patent is invalid. Many patents are invalidated on this basis. Contact your friendly local patent counsel for a real legal opinion.

I don't know if Audible Magic's come up with anything special for video, but for audio, the underlying technology is at least partly based on MFCC. You can find some more details here and here .

Also, they have to apply this filter only when content is added to a page, not every time it is played, so its a little less computationally intensive than some people have suggested.

It may be more expensive to search all existing fingerprints every time a new take-down request comes in.

I don't know if Audible Magic's come up with anything special for video, but for audio, the underlying technology is at least partly based on MFCC. You can find some more details here and here .

Also, they have to apply this filter only when content is added to a page, not every time it is played, so its a little less computationally intensive than some people have suggested.

It may be more expensive to search all existing fingerprints every time a new take-down request comes in.

Actually, you have a year from the time you publish or offer for sale a product that includes the invention.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/appxl_35_U_S_C_102.htm

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States...
emphasis added

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220050156873%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20050156873&RS=DN/20050156873

How about this patent on ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, both of which are MS proprietary extensions which are *not* part of the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are many others. The Mono team admits that their implementation of ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms is a "potential" problem.

...when the FEDERAL (U.S.) Patent and Trademark office...

Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential. (emphasis added)

Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential. (emphasis added)

The article linked to the application, not to the patent. The claims are fairly different. Try:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=Bystricky. INNM.&OS=IN/Bystricky&RS=IN/Bystricky

Regardless, another example of an app that should have been reject in whole.

From http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair and searching on the application number 10/136,163, which is US20030208745 (patent application) or US7055140 (Granted patent) it is possible to see the course of a patent application. The application was rejected twice, first on 03-23-2005 as seen under 'image file wrapper' and later at 09-07-2005. However the applicant pointed out that the cited patent (US5835699) does not claim a specific void function. As some has pointed out, USPTO has a backlog of 3 millions patent applications meaning there is not much time to do a proper search for prior art.

Too Late!

If you enter the application number in the US PTO search function, you get: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-a dv.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&S1=20030208745&OS=20030 208745&RS=20030208745

Patent 7,055,140: Software breakpoints implementation via specially named function.

This application was entered by Epson. The application is also extremely detailed. I am not sure what the point of this "freepatentsonline" web site is, since you can just search the USPTO's web site for free and get the COMPLETE information about a patent or patent application, and not just a summary.

Anyway, here's the link. Methinks this is a non-story. This application seems very specific.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=200302087 45.PGNR.&OS=DN/20030208745&RS=DN/20030208745

If you look up the application number in the USPTO, you will see that it has indeed matured to patent: US 7,055,140

The enforcability of this patent, however, is left to the discretion of the patent owner.

Here.

Got there from a search at their site...

Was it Gang Wang?

Sorry Gang, I counldn't resist.

For anyone that doesn't know: "Inventor" of a lot of Microsoft "patents".
Example:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6775781.PN.&OS=PN/67757 81&RS=PN/6775781

It's no joke. They really do believe they invented the idea:

Patent #6,775,781

CaptainPatent,

First, I don't know who you're quoting with "don't have enough background knowledge." I never said such a thing and none of the replies before me ever implied such a thing.

Second, I don't know where you came up with the statement "[t]he change now puts the burden into the attorney's hands to show why a motivation would be improper and giving evidence that the improvement really never had been thought of before." The Supreme Court never uses the phrase "burden" or "attorney," so I'm not sure if you read the same opinion that I did.

To correct some of the misapprehensions your post may have created, I'll try and recapture some of the what the Supreme Court said. I'll be quoting from the Syllabus and the Opinion directly. I note that the Syllabus is not written by the Justices themselves, but usually by a clerk or other court official.

As an initial matter, it seems to me that the Supreme Court thought that the Federal Circuit was not being "flexible enough" with its interpretation of the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" ("TSM") to combine prong of the obviousness inquiry. I think you have to read the proceedings below to understand where the Supreme Court is coming from:

"The Court of Appeals held that the District Court was incorrect that the nature of the problem to be solved satisfied this requirement because unless the "prior art references address[ed] the precise problem that the patentee was trying to solve," the problem would not motivate an inventor to look at those references. 119 Fed. Appx., at 288." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., p. 10.

This seems to imply that the Federal Circuit (i.e., "the Court of Appeals") looked only to the references themselves rather than a broader inquiry. If you read MPEP Section 2143.01, you'll see that the TSM to combine inquiry focuses on the teachings of the "prior art." In this case, the Federal Circuit was doing exactly that - looking to the prior art to determine whether there was any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references.

Now, it seems the Supreme Court is allowing a broader view of the TSM inquiry by allowing a Court (or Examiner), to look beyond the references and include the knowledge of what one of ordinary skill in the art would possess at the time the references were available. For example, the Supreme Court states:

"The principles underlying these cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida and Anderson's-Black Rock are illustrative--a court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." (emphasis added) KSR at p. 13.

The Court merely sums up this paragraph with one statement that I believe captures the essence of the "new" TSM inquiry: "[A] court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at p. 14. Hence, my interpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling, is that you still must refer to the references themselves to understand the technology and the teachings, but then a court (or an Examiner) is allowed to go beyond the explicit teachings of the references themselves and look at what a person with ordinary skill in the art would d

This is different than the EU, which allows for "Computer Impelemented Invention" or CII. This is an invention as executed by a device. Though in reality, CII patents have been granted when there was no device at the time of filing, so that's even a misnomer.

Regardless, the ruling is a big win for the software industry as it makes the test for software patentablity much, much higher. Essentally, an examiner should now be able to say "this exists in the regular world in exactly the same manner, no, you can't patent it just because you reproduced it on the web".

Porcupine8,

I'll try to address the first question, and then return later to address the second question, unless someone finishes the opinion before me.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., isn't so much about "obviousness" per se, but about the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" prong of the obviousness inquiry. According to the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure, an Examiner can establish a prima facie case of "obviouness" by showing that:

"First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations." MPEP Section 2143.

To understand the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" to combine prong of the "obviousness" inquiry, I would suggest reading MPEP Section 2143.01.

I've briefly read what the Supreme Court said about the Federal Circuit's decision, but I haven't had time to digest it yet. It seems somewhat amorphous to meet at this point, or in other words, there doesn't seem to be a definitive holding (e.g., "We hold that...") at this point.

The views expressed herein are in no way associated with any private entity or government organization

Porcupine8,

I'll try to address the first question, and then return later to address the second question, unless someone finishes the opinion before me.

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., isn't so much about "obviousness" per se, but about the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" prong of the obviousness inquiry. According to the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure, an Examiner can establish a prima facie case of "obviouness" by showing that:

"First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations." MPEP Section 2143.

To understand the "teaching-suggestion-motivation" to combine prong of the "obviousness" inquiry, I would suggest reading MPEP Section 2143.01.

I've briefly read what the Supreme Court said about the Federal Circuit's decision, but I haven't had time to digest it yet. It seems somewhat amorphous to meet at this point, or in other words, there doesn't seem to be a definitive holding (e.g., "We hold that...") at this point.

The views expressed herein are in no way associated with any private entity or government organization

IANAL, but this does seem to suggest that Vonage's lawbots could file something regarding the obviousness of Verizon's patents.

Here are the patents Verizon has, just a cursory reading makes them seem REALLY obvious imho(but then again I am a Vonage customer):
Patent Uno Patent Dos Patent Tres

IANAL, but this does seem to suggest that Vonage's lawbots could file something regarding the obviousness of Verizon's patents.

Here are the patents Verizon has, just a cursory reading makes them seem REALLY obvious imho(but then again I am a Vonage customer):
Patent Uno Patent Dos Patent Tres

IANAL, but this does seem to suggest that Vonage's lawbots could file something regarding the obviousness of Verizon's patents.

Here are the patents Verizon has, just a cursory reading makes them seem REALLY obvious imho(but then again I am a Vonage customer):
Patent Uno Patent Dos Patent Tres

It's worth noting that Blizzard have recently renewed their trademark on Blackthorne. Trademarks on other Blizzard games from that era appear to remain untouched.

Here's the patent Click Here

I'm not sure why this was modded "informative." The scope of a patent is always determined by its claims (see 35 U.S.C. 112. The language you copied is a standard disclaimer relating to the doctrine of equivalents. . The clause is always included in patent applications because it is impossible to describe all minor variations of an invention (using a nail instead of a screw, using C++ instead of C, etc.).

You mean, like a certain arrangement of pits on a DVD, causing the playing of that DVD to show a movie based on that plot? Maybe you should also add a claim for specific arrangements of color particles on Celluloid generating that same plot. Oh, and the arrangement of ink, toner or other colored material on paper or other surfaces to form an arrangement of letters which, when read, results in a story following that plot.

Are you sure you aren't a patent attorney? 'Cause if you aren't, you could probably make a fortune if you switched careers.

Actually you can make a fine case against it with common sense, that's why the majority of developers abhor software patents. Can I patent a fictional plot if I phrase the application so that it's a part of a physical device for conveying a story?

Device, or process. Specifically, a process of relaying a story having a unique plot. Not granted as yet, but it hasn't been rejected either.

Actually you can make a fine case against it with common sense, that's why the majority of developers abhor software patents. Can I patent a fictional plot if I phrase the application so that it's a part of a physical device for conveying a story?

Device, or process. Specifically, a process of relaying a story having a unique plot. Not granted as yet, but it hasn't been rejected either.

As another ex-examiner I agree with the points you have made. I took a quick look at the prosecution of this application. There were three non-final rejections made before the application was allowed. The examiner spent a good deal of time in laying out rejections under 35 USC 102 (anticipation) and 35 USC 103 (obviousness), using a two column format with the claim limitations in the left column and relevant sections from the prior art in the right column. The applicant made essentially no substantive changes to the claims and just asserted that examiner didn't show what was asserted. I think the examiner made a big mistake in the second and third rejections of failing to respond to the arguments made by the applicant in the amendments; this was noted by the attorney in the last amendment after which the application was allowed.

There are three things one must keep in mind in figuring out exactly what is covered by a patent. Fundamentally it is the claims that measure the invention, not the title or abstract, or random pieces of the specification. However, the language and terms in the specification must be interpreted in light of the description given in the specification. So, if a term in a claim is an "object library", for example, it wpould be interpreted as this term is discussed in the description. Finally, and relevant to the failing pointed out in the previous paragraph, the scope of the claims is further qualified by the back and forth of the comments and arguments made by the examiner and the applicant. If the applicant tries to avoid a rejection by arguing that a prior art reference feature is not covered by some limitation in the claim the applicant will be bound to this interpretation in any infringement action should a patent be issued. One of the purposes of making rejections, even if it might not be spot on a limitation is to flush out and clarify such possible ambiguities. This is particularly applicable here where an examiner decides to allow a claim previously rejected with no further limitation added. If an applicant is going to squeeze through a narrow "hole" in the prior art not coverable by an obviousness rejection it is important to make sure it is as narrow as possible. By failing to engage the attorney's arguments in the following rejections here the examiner weakened this aspect of prosecution. Instead it looks pretty much like set arguments back and forth, with the examiner essentially saying "OK, I give up, you win" with no further comment.

Fianlly, I see that a continuation has been filed, but, so far, has been stripped to just claim 1 of the issued patent (with one misspelling). There will clearly be a preliminary amendment filed with claims applicant wants to prosecute, but have no idea what this might be.

As another ex-examiner I agree with the points you have made. I took a quick look at the prosecution of this application. There were three non-final rejections made before the application was allowed. The examiner spent a good deal of time in laying out rejections under 35 USC 102 (anticipation) and 35 USC 103 (obviousness), using a two column format with the claim limitations in the left column and relevant sections from the prior art in the right column. The applicant made essentially no substantive changes to the claims and just asserted that examiner didn't show what was asserted. I think the examiner made a big mistake in the second and third rejections of failing to respond to the arguments made by the applicant in the amendments; this was noted by the attorney in the last amendment after which the application was allowed.

There are three things one must keep in mind in figuring out exactly what is covered by a patent. Fundamentally it is the claims that measure the invention, not the title or abstract, or random pieces of the specification. However, the language and terms in the specification must be interpreted in light of the description given in the specification. So, if a term in a claim is an "object library", for example, it wpould be interpreted as this term is discussed in the description. Finally, and relevant to the failing pointed out in the previous paragraph, the scope of the claims is further qualified by the back and forth of the comments and arguments made by the examiner and the applicant. If the applicant tries to avoid a rejection by arguing that a prior art reference feature is not covered by some limitation in the claim the applicant will be bound to this interpretation in any infringement action should a patent be issued. One of the purposes of making rejections, even if it might not be spot on a limitation is to flush out and clarify such possible ambiguities. This is particularly applicable here where an examiner decides to allow a claim previously rejected with no further limitation added. If an applicant is going to squeeze through a narrow "hole" in the prior art not coverable by an obviousness rejection it is important to make sure it is as narrow as possible. By failing to engage the attorney's arguments in the following rejections here the examiner weakened this aspect of prosecution. Instead it looks pretty much like set arguments back and forth, with the examiner essentially saying "OK, I give up, you win" with no further comment.

Fianlly, I see that a continuation has been filed, but, so far, has been stripped to just claim 1 of the issued patent (with one misspelling). There will clearly be a preliminary amendment filed with claims applicant wants to prosecute, but have no idea what this might be.

From the patent:

"A system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework. The method separates content, form, and function of the computer application so that each may be accessed or modified separately."

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6,8 26,744&RS=PN/6,826,744

I think I might buy some old IT books, move to America, then patent everything in them.