Push API Patent Advisory Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 06 August 2013

<wseltzer> [reminder, our wiki is: https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki ]

<scribe> scribe: plh

Claims Analysis, progress

Wendy: see https://www.w3.org/2013/papag/wiki/Claims_Analysis
... plh and chaals pulled out the independent claims
... and noted the equivalence between EU and US patents
... still leaves us with 16 claims
... and no one has looked at the JP patents yet
... and thank you to Larry for sending information on file wrapper and additional information

plh: is that in the wiki?

Wendy: not yet

<scribe> ACTION: plh to add http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul/0006.html in the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - Add http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-push-pag/2013Jul/0006.html in the wiki [on Philippe Le Hégaret - due 2013-08-13].

Wendy: next step is to review the independent claims against the draft
... in conjunction, re communication with Nokia
... spoke with ? from Nokia
... who expressed interest in cooperating in the PAG work
... and that suggests that Nokia will be responsive to questions
... even if they're engaging in litigations
... I asked: do they continue to assert all 9 patents against the latest version of the document
... and Nokia will look into identifying the essential claims
... if we have additional questions for them, feel free to bring those up
... comments?

plh: I thought Moz will look into the analysis of the claims

Wendy: Doug sent regrets but will follow up on the status
... we should get quick feedback from Moz on what they might be able to do
... so we don't end up blocking on them for nothing
... I'll ask them this week
... in the meantime, it won't be a waste time for others to do the same

<wseltzer> ACTION: wseltzer to follow-up with Mozilla re claims analysis [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Follow-up with Mozilla re claims analysis [on Wendy Seltzer - due 2013-08-13].

Eduardo: you classified the unique patents. to what extend did you look at them? claims may be different...

Chaals: I didn't look claim by claim
... the statements are basically the same however
... I do think it's important to go claim by claim however
... it would be useful to have links to each patent document

<scribe> ACTION: Charles to add links to the wiki to each patent document [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/06-papag-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Add links to the wiki to each patent document [on Charles McCathie Nevile - due 2013-08-13].

<wseltzer> [Links to the patents are in the Charter: http://www.w3.org/2013/03/push-pag-charter.html ]

Eduardo: ok, so we still need to analysis the overlaps
... i didn't take the time to compare them yet. but with regards to EU
... 016, 723 and 375 are divisional applications but claims may be different

Chaals: so some might updates to other ones...

Eduardo: starting from 375, there was a divisional patent which is 723, and then 016
... so, even if the text is similar, it's important to look at the patents

wendy: absolutely, that's a useful reminder
... we need to look deeper into the claims

Larry: the claims have to be interpreted in light of the spec
... do they all start with the same spec, and generated additional claims?

Eduardo: I didn't dive into the patents, but it seems some of them are starting from same doc and claims are slightly different

Larry: then it would be reasonnable to assume that they could get similar claims
... but don't know if they didn't

Wendy: you're right, claims are only a place to start

Chaals: some of the claims seem broad.

Larry: are you suggesting that we focus on the US patents?

Chaals: not at all
... the question is: is it better claims that do bear on the spec, or is it useful to begin to pick up claims that have no bearing?
... from which side should we approach the eliminitation?

Larry: we go through the list, one by one.
... if one of the claims isn't in the spec, you can ignore the entire patent

Wendy: we can edge descriptions to say "possibly applicable" or "not applicable", we're not at the point of reaching conclusion yet. useful to have some tentative in the wiki.

Next meeting

Wendy: August 20th
... same time.

Chaals: regrets from me