NeoMedia Technologies, Inc (NEOM)

[jonesieatl]

The EFF didn't disallow them.

The EFF simply made the request for re-examination.

And along with that request they provided documented information regarding what they believed to be prior art which might have caused some or all of NeoMedia's 95 claims in the subject patent to be rejected.

So far , the USPTO has agreed since they did in fact reject all 95 claims in a non-final action. They did so in a 78-page document detailing the connections between prior art and NEOM's claims.

I guess one perhaps silly analogy would be ... a field referee (USPTO) made his best call at the time of the play (awarding NEOM that patent). Then someone on the team the call went against (EFF & their backers, whoever they may be, if any) requested a review by video replay , and they even provided a view of the play from a camera they held on the sidelines.

The field ref. has been overruled by the replay-review judge (Anjan Deb) who has made a preliminary reversal of the field ref's earlier call.

Now Team NEOM has the opportunity to see if the camera THEY held on the sidelines was (1) working and (2) if it was working , see if it taped anything helpful and (3) if so , hope the replay-review judge looks at that camera's view and reverses the reversal.

LOL

jonesie



Yorkville / Cornell Tracking Board #board-9964


"I can think of no more valuable commodity than information"