You are welcome grow! And anyone else who responded
Unfortunately I am still limited to 5 posts a day and those posts early yesterday used them up!
I know those transcripts may be somewhat hard to read, but leaving the uh’s, um’s, st-st-stutters in I felt needed to be in there for context.
For whatever reason all my underlined facts did not transfer but a lot can be understood just by locating a statement marked ’Judge’ and the response afterwards, whether SFOR or SA.
Overall I am in agreement with ZPaul that the decision will be a lot sooner than 60 days. I believe he has pointed out cases, as of late, have had their decisions announced well before. Plus this 15 minutes each was kinda just a recap of what is already in the briefs and the claims for our patents.
Those claims spell out in detail how this is an improvement, a more advanced method, of moving , accessing, and storing data! Just as Ancora used, well they programmed, another piece of a computer BIOS memory to store memory- the basics was it just stored memory which seems like prior art and ‘purely functional and generic ‘ which COULD be considered abstract- BUT IT WASN’T!
It is true SFOR uses a separate authentication channel, ok yes it may be prior art but only out of a computer context. However, it was agreed by both judges it IS a computer solution, and the claims solved a computer problem!
By programming an access computer to store credentials and data while simultaneously re-routing authentication procedures to another completely separate channel where different pre-determined information is used and known only to the proper user which then authenticates that users identity, only to then allow the user to finally gain access back to the access computer.
This is definitely an improvement over any prior art of basic usernames and passwords.
Are our claims purely functional and generic, therefore abstract?? I think not!
Computer problem with computer solution?? Yes sir!
Improvement over prior art for computers??
Yes again!
Quote from hearing....
Judge: that, that, that’s ... You, You can’t mean that! You say even if you, if we all agree that this is a computer problem don’t bother looking at computer, uh, issues and solutions?
SA : If they had a computer specific solution , your honor, that would be patent eligible!
All IMO of course!
GLTA
B
Unfortunately I am still limited to 5 posts a day and those posts early yesterday used them up!
I know those transcripts may be somewhat hard to read, but leaving the uh’s, um’s, st-st-stutters in I felt needed to be in there for context.
For whatever reason all my underlined facts did not transfer but a lot can be understood just by locating a statement marked ’Judge’ and the response afterwards, whether SFOR or SA.
Overall I am in agreement with ZPaul that the decision will be a lot sooner than 60 days. I believe he has pointed out cases, as of late, have had their decisions announced well before. Plus this 15 minutes each was kinda just a recap of what is already in the briefs and the claims for our patents.
Those claims spell out in detail how this is an improvement, a more advanced method, of moving , accessing, and storing data! Just as Ancora used, well they programmed, another piece of a computer BIOS memory to store memory- the basics was it just stored memory which seems like prior art and ‘purely functional and generic ‘ which COULD be considered abstract- BUT IT WASN’T!
It is true SFOR uses a separate authentication channel, ok yes it may be prior art but only out of a computer context. However, it was agreed by both judges it IS a computer solution, and the claims solved a computer problem!
By programming an access computer to store credentials and data while simultaneously re-routing authentication procedures to another completely separate channel where different pre-determined information is used and known only to the proper user which then authenticates that users identity, only to then allow the user to finally gain access back to the access computer.
This is definitely an improvement over any prior art of basic usernames and passwords.
Are our claims purely functional and generic, therefore abstract?? I think not!
Computer problem with computer solution?? Yes sir!
Improvement over prior art for computers??
Yes again!
Quote from hearing....
Judge: that, that, that’s ... You, You can’t mean that! You say even if you, if we all agree that this is a computer problem don’t bother looking at computer, uh, issues and solutions?
SA : If they had a computer specific solution , your honor, that would be patent eligible!
All IMO of course!
GLTA
B
18
