RE: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:

["Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>]

Here are some additional questions that I would like to propose to the list.

Question #1:
On what date does John Berryhill stop posting material to the list
concerning this subject matter. The significance of this event is that is
the date John is likely to be retained by a client in this matter. Having
gotten to know John over the years, he would never engage in such a public
discussion if he was representing a client because of the potential ethical
considerations that it would raise.

Question #2
When John goes silent, who is the client that has retained his services:
SnapNames; VeriSign; Doster; TUCOWS; or some other registrar(s). This is the
question that I find most interesting because John probably does have the
biggest inbox of prior art on the subject matter.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of John
> Berryhill Ph.D. J.D.
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 10:21 AM
> To: Elliot Noss; Andy Gardner; ga@dnso.org; discuss-list@opensrs.org
> Subject: Re: [Re: [ga] GoDaddy:
>
>
>
> From: "Elliot Noss" <enoss@tucows.com>
>
>
> > John, are you sure about 12/99? I thought it was 2000 as well.
>
> If you take a look at the first paragraph of the application, it states:
>
> "[0001] This application is a continuation of and claims priority
> from U.S.
> Provisional Patent Application No. 60/245,102, filed Nov. 1,
> 2000, and U.S.
> Provisional Patent Application No. 60/248,341, filed Nov. 13, 2000. "
>
> There are several things going on here.  First of all, a US patent
> application can claim the filing date of an earlier-filed provisional
> application, so long as the regular application is filed within a
> year of the
> provisional.  That was done here.
>
> There were two provisional applications filed in November 2000.  We do not
> know at this time to what extent those provisionals may or may not have
> adequately supported the claimed material of the later US
> applications.  But
> for the purpose of focussing efforts productively, it is conservative to
> assume that the support was there.
>
> So, that assumption provides the pending application with an
> effective filing
> date of November 2000.
>
> Now, there are a couple of categories of things that qualify as prior art.
> One category would be to show that the invention was known and
> used by others
> prior to the invention thereof by the applicant.  However, the date of
> invention is not objectively knowable on the basis of evidence
> available to
> us.
>
> The most reliable category of prior art are things that were in
> public use,
> published, or on sale more than one year prior to the effective
> filing date
> of the application.  That critical date is objectively knowable
> to us at this
> time, and that date is November 1, 1999.
>
> Additionally, everyone ought to know that during prosecution of a
> US patent
> application, anyone connected with the application (the
> applicant, the owner,
> etc.) has a duty to submit copies of relevant prior art
> information of which
> they are aware.  There's no duty to go out and look for stuff,
> but assuming
> they are reading this list, then they would do well to submit copies of
> relevant archives that are posted here.  This will help them obtain a
> stronger patent, as will any attempt to submit material to the
> patent office
> at this time, since they will be the only ones involved in arguing around
> such material and/or amending the claims ever so slightly to avoid a
> rejection based on such material.
>
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html