(Total Views: 476)
Posted On: 02/20/2019 9:40:33 AM
Post# of 82686
Without Anacora as precedent I think we win
As I posted before , the orals could hang on a word or phrase that the judges find either clarifying or confusing the issue.
Anacora is close as a precedent, but in hindsight it's different , Anacora's virus preventing software is a process is 100% within a computer , software is installed in the bios
SFORs OOBA is a computer process that takes place inside intercepting the login then sending the phone call or biometrics with a code for user to put in code into computer. That became the issue IMO. Not our computer specific problem , computer specific solution process. Not whether its 100% in a computer or not.
Anacora's process then became the point of argument in orals by judges , creating confusion. Confusion won the day for SA! IMO
In the rehearing , it might be a strategy to argue just our patent , the PTAB , SCOTUS guidelines and our process, Newman agreed that our Patent is a computer process solving a computer specific issue. We should stick to that as an argument.
Let SA argue its not 100% inside computer. That is really not the issue anyway. That is not our process , it's a computer specific process that no one 2010 came up with at the time of invention and it solves a computer specific problem.
SA was prepared for this fight about anacora because they lost anacora before Wyk.
Wyk who wrote the anacora decision had some issues during the orals trying to connect the dots about anacora and SFORs processes, with the OOBA process being outside the computer. It was an argument in hindsight that didn't need to happen.
I played chess against someone I really arrogant, beat him 9 straight , he was not a good person I wanted to humiliate him,on the last game, i aggressively took all his fighting pieces an and I paid no attention to defense, I had him, was going to get a checkmate on the next move, ironically I left him with only move, the move I left him with was to check mate me , I forced him into checkmating me he had no other choice as me eyes were on the other side of the board . Anacora was like that they backed into a win , a Trojan horse we introduced.
I may be wrong .
Just an observation. I would be surprised if on appeal we use Ancora
As I posted before , the orals could hang on a word or phrase that the judges find either clarifying or confusing the issue.
Anacora is close as a precedent, but in hindsight it's different , Anacora's virus preventing software is a process is 100% within a computer , software is installed in the bios
SFORs OOBA is a computer process that takes place inside intercepting the login then sending the phone call or biometrics with a code for user to put in code into computer. That became the issue IMO. Not our computer specific problem , computer specific solution process. Not whether its 100% in a computer or not.
Anacora's process then became the point of argument in orals by judges , creating confusion. Confusion won the day for SA! IMO
In the rehearing , it might be a strategy to argue just our patent , the PTAB , SCOTUS guidelines and our process, Newman agreed that our Patent is a computer process solving a computer specific issue. We should stick to that as an argument.
Let SA argue its not 100% inside computer. That is really not the issue anyway. That is not our process , it's a computer specific process that no one 2010 came up with at the time of invention and it solves a computer specific problem.
SA was prepared for this fight about anacora because they lost anacora before Wyk.
Wyk who wrote the anacora decision had some issues during the orals trying to connect the dots about anacora and SFORs processes, with the OOBA process being outside the computer. It was an argument in hindsight that didn't need to happen.
I played chess against someone I really arrogant, beat him 9 straight , he was not a good person I wanted to humiliate him,on the last game, i aggressively took all his fighting pieces an and I paid no attention to defense, I had him, was going to get a checkmate on the next move, ironically I left him with only move, the move I left him with was to check mate me , I forced him into checkmating me he had no other choice as me eyes were on the other side of the board . Anacora was like that they backed into a win , a Trojan horse we introduced.
I may be wrong .
Just an observation. I would be surprised if on appeal we use Ancora
(2)
(0)
