> >In my opinion, the XMatch patent completely fails to satisfy the
> [non-obviousness]
> >requirement.
>
> Sounds like a legal opinion.
My reply, like yours, is a personal opinion. I assume you skipped the
preamble of my reply.
I personally would not rely on it to protect
> me from treble damages for willful infringement (35 U.S.C. 284), but then
I
> would not rely on a patent invalidity opinion from someone not registered
to
> practice before the USPTO. But, there are some who would rely on such an
> opinion, so I would also never publish legal opinions on the Internet.
Get a grip Bill. My opinion is a personal opinion. Go back and re-read my
reply. When I issue legal opinions, it is only given under an express
attorney-client agreement in an area of the law where I have expertise.
> If you should need legal assistance in the area of intellectual property,
I
> can suggest some firms that may be able to assist you. :-)
Was that necessary? Do you feel better now? Clearly, the XMatch patent
would have difficulty in withstanding a validity challenge with respect to
the prior art. It does not take an attorney with twenty years of IP
experience to formulate that conclusion. Thanks for your input.
-Paul, W9AC
_______________________________________________
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|