|
OK, out of curiosity, I actually went ahead and read http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf, specifically the parts where they address the patents being asserted. Now, I'm usually used to reading office actions or reexamination-related documents, whereas this is a response to a lawsuit, so things may be different... But I gotta say, wow, this looks really weak to me. Let me explain why. Here's what I usually see when I see prior art presented against a patent: The argument first quotes the claim in question, and for each element in the claim, it cites one or more pieces of prior art, and then they quote (or at least identify via line numbers etc.) the relevant sections of the prior art reference and argue why it invalidates the claim or claim element. The B&N document mostly just says, "Pfft, this patent covers nothing more than X, and X was already being done in 2000" without any reference to back it up. In only a few places do they cite actual prior art references, but again, they just throw the reference out there without any explanation as to why or how it is pertinent. Again, like I said, this is not an office action but an answer to a complaint, and detailed arguments may not be part of these. It'd be great if a patent lawyer could weigh in. |