Cautiously Optimistic.
Thank you JonnyQwan Raging bull #335314: ( in response to Beenwaitin0 )
" Well Been... here you go...
It is obvious in the joint letter just filed with the court in San Francisco, that Vertical is VERY happy with the USPTO examiner making it clear that he will allow the new claims 54 - 57 of the 744 patent, if Vertical agrees to cancel the rejected claims. They seem especially happy that new claims 56 and 57 are about to become part of the 744 patent as it will read, emerging from reexamination.
( I understand that they are currently not "official" claims, but in the latest joint letter, Vertical makes it clear that they will accept the examiner's compromise, and these new claims will clearly be part of the 744 patent as it will emerge, coming out of the reexamination.)
From the new joint letter sent to the court in San Francisco:
Claims 56 and 57 read as follows:
56. A method for generating a computer application on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said computer application, a form of said computer application and a functionality of said computer application, said method comprising:
creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said computer application, said form of said computer application, and said functionality of said computer application, said arbitrary objects being objects that can be created independently by individual preference, that are interchangeable, and that may
be, but need not be, accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality; managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library into a design framework to create said computer application.
57. A method for generating a web site on a host system in an arbitrary object framework that separates a content of said web site, a form of said web site, and a functionality of said web site, said method comprising: creating arbitrary objects with corresponding arbitrary names of various object types for generating said content of said web site, said form of said web site, and said functionality of said web site, said arbitrary objects being objects that can be created independently by individual preference, that are interchangeable, and that may be, but need not be, accessed solely by name, the object being an entity that can have form, content, or functionality or any combination of form, content and functionality;
managing said arbitrary objects in an object library; and deploying said arbitrary objects from said object library to a container
page to create said web site.
Claims 56 and 57 differ only from the previous independent claims 1 and 26 in that they adopt additional language from the Court’s Claim Construction Order, indicated by underscore above. Specifically, the additional language includes the Court’s construction of the term “arbitrary object[s].†These changes do not substantially change the claims at all but merely clarify the scope of the claims using language provided by the Court. Thus, it is indisputable that res judicata would bar Vertical from asserting claims 56 and 57 against Interwoven in a separate, later lawsuit."
Now... let me ask you a question. Why would ANY Judge, not allow these new claims to be included in the Interwoven Vs VCSY litigation, when #1.. Interwoven brought the action against VCSY! ( Interwoven continues to play the victim, when in fact, they brought the lawsuit.) And... #2.. The new claims, as they will be written, only add the adjudicated language that was included by Judge Seeborg in his claims rulings after the Markman Hearing??????
Judge Seeborg Claims Construction ruling told us the legal meaning of the claims. Interwoven was not happy with those adjudicated definitions, so they took their arguments to the Patent Office. Unfortunately for Interwoven, and VERY fortunate for us longs, the USPTO agreed with the District Judge's opinion, and allowed the exact language from that Judge's decision to become the new, improved 744 patent.
That makes 744 ( and by proxy 629 ) BULLETPROOF!!!!!!!!!!! "
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
