(Total Views: 865)
Posted On: 09/29/2017 3:44:44 PM
Post# of 82676
The way I read it is that SFOR holds the patent to "OOBA" and "Centralized OOBA System".
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the PTAB and the civil case just can't get this wrong. Very simple to understand and follow. Anything prior to Sept. 2000 is "inband authentication". In other words, there was no second channel system prior to Sept. 2000, for granting access to a host computer.
This is what I've always understood, but the court docs. keep repeating the same description. There is no diverting from this. The PTAB and the courts would have to be stoned to not rule in favor of SFOR.
But as I always say nothing is ever a guarentee except for death.
IMO
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the PTAB and the civil case just can't get this wrong. Very simple to understand and follow. Anything prior to Sept. 2000 is "inband authentication". In other words, there was no second channel system prior to Sept. 2000, for granting access to a host computer.
This is what I've always understood, but the court docs. keep repeating the same description. There is no diverting from this. The PTAB and the courts would have to be stoned to not rule in favor of SFOR.
But as I always say nothing is ever a guarentee except for death.
IMO
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
