On Feb 2, 2008 11:40 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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... > > >
