[TowerTalk] N4XM Match Info request

[Paul Christensen, Esq.]

> >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