Replies to post #210114 on Zerify Inc (ZRFY)

[I_Am_Ram]

“If we are not dealing with a computer specific issue then shouldn't SA just win the case and we move on from there?”

I’m not saying who won or didn’t win. I’m clarifying the argument and breaking it down in regards to that argument. SA got the claim invalidated by getting the court to say it’s not computer specific and therefore prior art as it’s been done before outside of the realm of computers. Correct?

Now SFOR is appealing that. So SFOR is not appealing whether the patent works on computers, they’re appealing that the claim is computer specific and therefore patentable. When the judge says what he said (the quote you claimed as making SA’s point moot), it’s not a good sign as he is acknowledging if the claim is not computer specific, then indeed it is prior art.

Throughout the whole thing SA broke down how the interpreted the claim and they were not corrected in doing so. They were only corrected a couple times when referring to other case’s rulings. Not all of the cases they brought into play were argued with. In fact most of them were not. Historically it’s a bad sign when they lawyers get their points off like that in this appeal environment. SFOR had to prove that the previous courts ruling was wrong and say why. I feel they did a very bad job doing this as they basically argued their patent is innovative and solves a problem but did not explain well enough or defend well enough that their claim was computer specific. They went on defense for that. So in my opinion, the hearing did not go well for SFOR.

And as I said before, in panel hearings, usually the judges come in leaning one way and question based on that. All I heard to SFOR were “well couldn’t it have been written as...” or “this problem has been solved outside of computers by...”

To SA all they made comments on was “this doesn’t apply to 101...” and similar comments like that. Each time they did that SA either explained why it did or came up with a new example.