|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
NCSA released the Mosaic browser in 1993.It was also a client for earlier
protocols such as FTP, NNTP, and gopher. Mosaic was also the first browser to
display images inline with text instead of displaying images in a separate
window.
This alone probably makes it obvious.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 03:19 PM EDT |
So basically a snail mail, with a picture, or a postcard
would not have this functionality? Or even better a treasure
map to find the place to take a picture.
Not obvious, I think Google should just sue Nokia, and this
patient troll.
Remember to litigate not innovate it pays better returns in
the long run.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT |
Gene Quinn has posted a while back a tutorial on how the obviousness rules
function.
In a nutshell, an invention would be obvious when
someone knowledgable about the area would look at your invention and consider it
to be already known; not exactly but rather known if one were to combine several
references. In other words, the predictable and non-unique combination of what
multiple references teach would yield your invention. The prototypical example
is when you have invented A+B. A is known in the prior art, and B is known in
the prior art. Upon looking at A and then looking at B, would someone of skill
in the art consider A+B to be already known? If the answer is yes, then A+B is
obvious. If the answer is no, then A+B is not obvious.
We have
such a list of prior that would be combined:
- the HTML IMG tag for image
URLs
was proposed by Marc Andreessen in Feb 1993.
- MIME for use in e-mail is
explicitly mentioned in RFC1521 in 1993.
- HTML as a MIME document type was
officially codified in RFC1866 in November 1995 and was first described as a
candidate for official registration back in 1992.
The filing date of the
patent is April 4 1995. All this prior art predates the patent by more than one
year. It should be meet the requirement for obviousness described by Quinn.
However it would be best to have an explicit link for the third point. It shows
that people were aware back then HTML and email could be combined.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
Claim 9 has nothing about HTML or URIs. It is only dependent on Claim 1, which
says "computer 1 sends a link to computer 2, which retrieves the
information from the link". Think symlinks over NFS.
Claim 9 says the link must be sent via email. So you only need to find an email
program which was capable of automatically downloading a file linked in the
email. Like the Morris worm.
Although what "single application" means is anyone's guess. Single
executable? And besides, if your "invention" consists of doing
something with one exe which could be done with a shell command and a bunch of
exe's, then you're reduced to a nit-picky idea of inventing.
The rest of the claims are as much junk.
Regards,
-Jeremy
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
