decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Dynamic Symbolic Lookup Patent as describe By Van Nest closing comments. | 484 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Dynamic Symbolic Lookup Patent as describe By Van Nest closing comments.
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 05:10 PM EDT
I checked the record for the ex parte reexamination yesterday, Oracle has filed
for an extension to answer the invalidated claims. Invalidation of claims 11-41
come from two sources, a patent (expired, assigned to IBM) and the Gries book.
The two sets of claims rejections are not perfect subsets of each other between
the two sources. I'd think in general Oracle would have a hard time overcoming
both sources, which address both obviousness (5 USC § 103 (a) - US Patent
4,571,678 Chaitin, claims 11, 13-23 and 27-41) and novelty (35 USC § 102 (b),
Claims 11-26 and 33-41 - the Gries Book 'Compiler Construction for Digital
Computers, 1971).

It's possible to follow the claims construction with a copy of the patent and my
copy of the Gries book.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )