|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
From: Perry and Lorae Merritt (Perry_Lorae, merrittclan dot com) Date: 2002.01.05 - 13.16 MST
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 Ok, I finally got the first one ready for review.There is one known problem (there is no number 22, I go from 21 to 23) and I have questions about #23 and #25. For #23 I say ioctl, is it really going to be an fioctl or does it matter? For #25 I did my best to insert a queue, but I'm not sure its needed. Is each call we get going to be part of a unique kernel thread? If so, I think we can block the thread and eliminate the need for a queue. I'd appreciate your comments on this. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does need to describe the basic idea with as much detail as we can comfortably include. The requirement for filing a "real" patent just says that the provisional patent has to describe what's in the "real" one. The patent office states "It is recommended that the disclosure of the invention in the provisional application be as complete as possible. In order to obtain the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application the claimed subject matter in the later filed non-provisional application must have support in the provisional application." So even if we end up refining things for the "real" one as long as it doesn't totally conflict with the provisional I think we're ok. I also read where we can combine multiple provisionals into one real patent. That was part of the decision to write separate provisionals. Anyway, my plan is to get these finished and submitted on the 16th. So the sooner I get your comments, the better. I'm also including the other two patents (I decided to keep the separate rather than trying to write one huge one) so you can see the abstracts that I wrote. That's all that I've done on them. Perry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 2002.01.06 - 04.02 MST |
