You are so talented why don't you just stick to the facts and admit your wrong... shouldn't have titled your SA piece the way you did?
Check me if I'm wrong but the priority chain was broken until corrected last year. If the priority chain was not clear to the general public and the rules hadn't been followed, how can anyone infringing be liable for damages prior to the certificate of correction? This obviously doesn't mean WDDD can take advantage of their patents going forward against other current infringers. I betting they have the goods and will proceed accordingly. What I wish is that the pumping stop and you patent plays, simply help us understand the limitations of WDDD's position due to the past patent office filing errors and not fill the investment community with false speculations of WDDD's updside .
See the captions below of how I support my point above.
All of the Patents-in-Suit reference U.S. Patent No. 6,219,045 (“the ‘045 patent”). ¶¶ 7, 13, 16, 19, 22. The ‘045 patent was filed on November 12, 1996 and issued on April 17, 2001. ¶ 8. The ‘045 patent does not claim priority to any earlier filed application and does not contain any reference to the Provisional Application. ¶¶ 9-11
1. Under the old rules:
The 1996 version of the regulation requires reference to a “prior provisional application” “in the first sentence of the specification following the title.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.78(a)(4) (1996). There is no dispute that neither the ‘690 patent nor the ‘045 patent reference the provisional application in the first sentence following the title. Accordingly, neither patent can claim priority to the provisional application.
2. Judges words not mine:
Even if the 2000 version of the regulation did apply, the Patents-In-Suit could not claim priority to the provisional application. The November 29, 2000 version of the regulation states that: Any non provisional application claiming the benefit of one or more prior filed co-pending provisional applications must contain a reference to each such prior provisional application, identifying it as a provisional application, and including the provisional application number (consisting of series code and serial number). Unless the reference required by this paragraph is included in an application data sheet (§ 1.76), the specification must contain or be amended to contain such reference in the first sentence following any title.
Thus, according to that regulation, any reference to the Provisional Application must be either in “the specification in the first sentence following any title” or in an “application data sheet.” Under MPEP [the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure] § 201.11, the specific reference can be either in the first sentence of the specification or in the application data sheet”
AI
