decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Reexaminations - Detailed Tables - UPDATED
Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 07:56 AM EDT

A number of readers wrote in asking for more detail in the tables showing the reexaminations in the Oracle and Interval Licensing cases. Specifically, folks asked for a breakdown by type of claim, greater clarity as to whether claims were simply excluded from reexamination or confirmed by the examiner upon reexamination, and a bit more explanation about how the table works. So here we go.

In these updated tables we now show claims by type, independent versus dependent, since independent claims tend to be far more important. We have also added a new column to show claims that were the subject of the reexamination petition but which, after due consideration by the examiner, were confirmed, i.e., not rejected.

Some clarification on the percentages shown. Percent of All Claims is percentage of all claims by type. In other words, the fact that 52 out of 56 independent claims were subject to reexamination in the table below means that 92.86% of the independent claims in those seven patents were reexamined.

In contrast, Percent of Claims Reexamined shows the calculation of claims subject to reexamination that have been rejected in an office action to date, so it only calculates the percentage on those patents that have had an office action, excluding those that have not. In the case below that means that 15 of the 17 independent claims subject to reexamination in patents '702, '520, '476, and '720 were rejected, or 88.24%.

Finally, a claim is shown as surviving if it was (a) not subject to reexamination, (b) subject to reexamination but confirmed, or (c) approved for reexamined but not yet reexamined, i.e., no first office action has issued. So if you add the columns Claims Rejected and Claims Surviving it equals the totals in the Claims columns.

_________________________

Oracle v. Google as of 2011-06-27























Patent No. Claims Claims Not Subject to Reexam Claims Subject to Reexam Claims Rejected Claims Confirmed Claims Surviving

Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep
RE38104 30 11 2 8 28 3 - - - - 30 11
5966702 4 19 1 13 3 6 3 6 0 0 1 13
6061520 4 19 0 1 4 18 2 6 2 12 2 13
6125447 5 19 0 0 5 19 - - - - 5 19
6192476 7 14 0 0 7 14 7 10 0 4 0 4
6910205 3 11 1 7 2 4 - - - - 3 11
7426720 3 19 0 2 3 17 3 17 0 0 0 2
Totals 56 112 4 31 52 81 15 39 2 16 41 73
Percent of All Claims 100.00% 100.00% 7.14% 27.68% 92.86% 72.32% 26.79% 34.82% 3.57% 14.29% 73.21% 65.18%
Percent of Claims Reexamined





88.24% 70.91%



_____________________

Interval Licensing vs. AOL et al
as of 2011-06-27






















Patent No. Claims Claims Not Subject to Reexam Claims Subject to Reexam Claims Rejected Claims Confirmed Claims Surviving

Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep Ind Dep
6263507 15 114 11 90 4 24 - - - - 15 114
6034652 9 9 5 4 4 5 - - - - 9 9
6788314 6 9 0 0 6 9 6 9 0 0 0 0
6757682 3 17 0 4 3 13 1 13 2 0 2 4
Totals 33 149 16 98 17 51 7 22 2 0 26 127
Percent of All Claims 100.00% 100.00% 48.48% 65.77% 51.52% 34.23% 21.21% 14.77% 6.06% 0.00% 78.79% 85.23%
Percent of Claims Reexamined





77.78% 100.00%



************

UPDATE

In the above tables the columns marked Ind and Dep refer to independent and dependent claims, respectively. Independent claims, as the term implies, are claims that stand independent of any other claims made. They are the broadest and most important claims. Dependent claims, as the term implies, are claims that are dependent on other claims, either independent or dependent, and tend to further refine or narrow the scope of the claimed invention. As discussed in this earlier story, the loss of independent claims can be huge in infringement litigation, and to the extent a dependent claim survives reexamination while the claim(s) on which it depends do not, the dependent claim is read to incorporate all of the language of the claims upon which it depends.


  


Reexaminations - Detailed Tables - UPDATED | 55 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What come next?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 09:56 AM EDT
This piece explained to me how a patent may be invalidated. It would be wonderful if people submitting comments on Groklaw can outline the likely 'angle of attack' Google and its lawyers might employ in invalidating each one of these patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections - show the error so it's easy to find
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 10:16 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic -- REALLY!
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 10:17 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks - doesn't hurt to add a link
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 10:19 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES -- it really appreciated
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 10:20 AM EDT
n/t

[ Reply to This | # ]

Reexaminations - Detailed Tables
Authored by: jsoulejr on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 10:23 AM EDT
Thanks, it clears things up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nortel Patent Sale
Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, June 29 2011 @ 12:36 PM EDT
Given Google's fairly defensive patent strategy, whilst they are obviously
competitors, it would probably be worthwhile for Apple and them to come to some
sort of patent non-aggression pact, where Google acquires the Nortel patents and
some sort of Apple/Google cross licensing pact is agreed.

I'll send the companies the bill for my idea :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

UPDATE X2
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 02 2011 @ 08:18 PM EDT
It appears a non-final rejection has been issue on the '447 patent with all 24
claims rejected.

http://www.whda.com/blog/2011/06/oracle-v-google-android%C2%AE-update/#more-2496


The patent attorney also makes the opinion that the rejections of the '520
patent is weak.

BTW: The top reexam blogs:

http://www.whda.com/blog/
http://www.patentspostgrant.com/


[ Reply to This | # ]

Reexaminations - Detailed Tables - UPDATED
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 06 2011 @ 03:40 PM EDT
Any more news on the newly rejected claims (all 24) of the
6,125,447 patent due to prior patent and prior art.

"The validity of another Oracle patent has become doubtful
in the dispute with Google about the infringement of Java
patents and copyrights on Android devices. The US Patent
Office and Trademark Office (USPTO) has provisionally
declared all 24 claims of patent number 6,125,447 as being
invalid. The USPTO based its decision on a patent that had
been used in another case. This patent was granted in 1994
three years before Sun filed its Java patent application.
The US patent office also considered two publications
released in 1996 as evidence that Sun's described method for
protecting applications via "protection domains" was
anticipated by "prior art."

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Another-problem-for-
Oracle-s-patents-1273038.html

It's funny how little notice this is getting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )