Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.

Tomas L. Byrnes tomb at byrneit.net
Sun Feb 3 04:40:12 UTC 2008


ATT has no reason to pull their application, what needs to happen is
that the publisher of the prior art contact the USPTO.

If ATT willingly failed to note the prior art in their app, that may be
a problem, but it isn't their duty to report ALL prior art, just the
stuff they know about.

IANAL, but I have filed some patents, and reviewed a bunch more.

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: christopher.morrow at gmail.com 
> [mailto:christopher.morrow at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
> Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2008 12:58 PM
> To: Tomas L. Byrnes
> Cc: Ben Butler; Paul Vixie; nanog at merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Blackholes and IXs and Completing the Attack.
> 
> On Feb 2, 2008 3:39 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <tomb at byrneit.net> wrote:
> 
> > The bigger issue with all these approaches is that they run 
> afoul of a 
> > patent applied for by AT&T:
> >
> > 
> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1
> > &u 
> > 
> =%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=2
> > 00
> > 60031575&OS=20060031575&RS=20060031575
> >
> > USPTO App Number 20060031575
> 
> Somene from ATT may want to consider pulling this patent 
> application since it seems to fail on prior art...
> 
> http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0410/soricelli.html
> 
> presented  by a juniper employee (Joe Soricelli ) and Wayne 
> Gustavus from Verizon. IANAL though...
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list