Do Feeble Arguments Justify PTO's Eolas Findings?
from the coulda-woulda-shoulda dept
theodp writes "In its Eolas Plug-In Patent Reexam Findings (pdf file), the USPTO finds the W3C-provided prior art flawed, but tosses in the 'teachings of Berners-Lee' (e.g., 'HTML browsers parse HTML'), the first 12 pages of a 1987 OO book (e.g., 'applying object oriented techniques to software makes the software more tolerant to change'), an article about rumored changes to circa-1993 X Windows, and a healthy dose of coulda-woulda-shoulda (e.g., 'it would have been obvious') to justify its conclusion that all ten of the patent's claims are meritless. While the decision may save Microsoft $521 million, it's too bad the USPTO had to resort to such feeble arguments (e.g., the 'teachings of Berners-Lee' were also cited in GRANTING the patent!) and vaporware. Documentation of successfully implemented prior art was readily available, but the W3C elected to disregard the public's input. "