« Google's top patent lawyer notes the "disturbing trend" of lawyer-inventors | Main | The Week in Patent Litigation (March 16-20) »

March 19, 2009


Random Observer

In regard "In case of Emergency," the listing of facts is misleading. The patent in question is not a continuation of a 2003 application, but is rather a continuation of an application filed 1996 (the parent application issued in 2003). 7 years lead time in this field makes a huge difference in terms of novelty and obviousness.

Joe Mullin

RO, you are correct that the 2003 date refers to the issued parent patent, not the application. Fixed. Thanks.

Wikipedia Review

I know he has a bit of an ego, so some confusion is inevitable, but I'm pretty sure Jimmy Wales isn't God...

The comments to this entry are closed.