Replied: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:55:10 -0500 Replied: "Peter Dichiara" Received: from hdbossmtp2.haleanddorr.com (hdbossmtp2.haleanddorr.com [148.139.4.26]) by postoffice.npac.syr.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA04429 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from 148.139.4.35 by hdbossmtp2.haleanddorr.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:27 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Received: from haledorr.com ([148.139.29.183]) by hdbosmail.haledorr.com (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with ESMTP id AAAB9F; Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:26 -0500 Message-ID: <38C935E1.885E0D75@haledorr.com> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 12:50:25 -0500 From: "Peter Dichiara" Organization: Hale and Dorr LLP X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en]C-CCK-MCD HaleandDorr (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geoffrey Fox CC: karin carey Subject: claims and comments Content-Type: multipart/mixed ; boundary="------------B610C353730BA124C1BC07EC" Content-Length: 5043 --------------B610C353730BA124C1BC07EC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr. Fox: Claims claim 1: synchronous system -- includes database, content server, collaboration server, and two types of client logic (at a minimum) one sending a tuple message to the content server and collaboration server, and another for receiving the tuple from the collaboration server and sending a tuple message to the content server (this latter tuple message need not be identical to the first) claim 53: asynchronous system: no servers; more focus on database aspects. There are many dependent claims focusing on many, many aspects, down to specific tags. If you feel someone did something innovative, not covered by the independents (above) let me know and I suspect we can find a dependent claim directed to it. Inventors Key criteria: collaboration with at least some subset of the co-inventors on a concrete concept as defined by the claims. Routine implementation is not invention. If you know that you could have written a spec. of the problem or a schema and that any reasonably skilled developer could have solved the problem then that implementer is not an inventor even if the person who created the spec. did not himself know how to solve the problem (he knew enough that it was within routine skill). The flip side of this is to ask whether a person innovated in solving the problem; i.e., you provide a specification and the person says that they don't know if a solution exists and they actually need to innovate to meet your goals. It might help to remember that a person could be a co-inventor on a dependent claim and not on an independent claim. For example, a dependent claim may introduce a new element that only became part of the system through the collaboration of this person. Shared Browser We still intend to file a CIP on the shared browser. The claims in that case will solely focus on the browser. We can amend the webwisdom claims to include a shared browser as a component, but this will be included with the other changes we intend to make. I look forward to your comments. Regards, Peter +++ This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Hale and Dorr LLP immediately -- by replying to this message or by sending an e-mail to postmaster@haledorr.com -- and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments. Thank you. For more information about Hale and Dorr LLP, please visit us at http://www.haleanddorr.com. --------------B610C353730BA124C1BC07EC Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dr. Fox:

Claims
claim 1: synchronous system  -- includes database, content server, collaboration server, and two types of client logic (at a minimum) one sending a tuple message to the content server and collaboration server, and another for receiving the tuple from the collaboration server and sending a tuple message to the content server (this latter tuple message need not be identical to the first)

claim 53: asynchronous system:  no servers; more focus on database aspects.

There are many dependent claims focusing on many, many aspects, down to specific tags.  If you feel someone did something innovative, not covered by the independents (above) let me know and I suspect we can find a dependent claim directed to it.

Inventors
Key criteria:  collaboration with at least some subset of the co-inventors on a concrete concept as defined by the claims.  Routine implementation is not invention.  If you know that you could have written a spec. of the problem or a schema and that any reasonably skilled developer could have solved the problem then that implementer is not an inventor even if the person who created the spec. did not himself know how to solve the problem (he knew enough that it was within routine skill).  The flip side of this is to ask whether a person innovated in solving the problem; i.e., you provide a specification and the person says that they don't know if a solution exists and they actually need to innovate to meet your goals.

It might help to remember that a person could be a co-inventor on a dependent claim and not on an independent claim.  For example, a dependent claim may introduce a new element that only became part of the system through the collaboration of this person.

Shared Browser
We still intend to file a CIP on the shared browser.  The claims in that case will solely focus on the browser.  We can amend the webwisdom claims to include a shared browser as a component, but this will be included with the other changes we intend to make.

I look forward to your comments.

Regards,
Peter --------------B610C353730BA124C1BC07EC--