• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: patent application (MSFT)
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:22:35 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1023-CC41F9E33DD011D7BB6D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• References: <r01050400-1023-CC41F9E33DD011D7BB6D0003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=
> PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030028685'.PGNR
> ..&OS=DN/20030028685&RS=DN/20030028685

Interesting.  I thought that if you knocked out an independant claim 
(such as #1 in the excerpt you quoted), then the dependant claims (such 
as #4) are automatically invalidated.

It seems pretty obvious that OSF DCE, among others, are prior art that 
invalidate #1; it had several API's that were "transparently remote."

	/r$

• References:
  • patent application (MSFT)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: patent application (MSFT)
• Next by Date: RE: patent application (MSFT)
• Previous by thread: Re: patent application (MSFT)
• Next by thread: Re: patent application (MSFT)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread