On Feb 2, 2008 11:40 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb@byrneit.net> 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: christopher.morrow@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.morrow@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:58 PM To: Tomas L. Byrnes Cc: Ben Butler; Paul Vixie; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
On Feb 2, 2008 3:39 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb@byrneit.net> 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...