|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
From: June Mullins (junemullins, earthlink dot net) Date: 2002.01.08 - 16.05 MST
Sorry it took so long. I agree with most of Jay's and Don's comments.
I'm neutral
on the CLI/scripts debate. I'm not up to using Jay's non-Word types of
corrections,
so I've attached a Word doc with Jay's corrections in it (I think) as
well as some
reWording suggestions of my own.
Bottom line - I agree, it looks really good! Thanks for going through
all that work!
The funding story from England is a little disappointing, however, if
I'm reading your note correctly.
I guess we just keep on trucking.
June
Perry and Lorae Merritt wrote:
> 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
>
> System to utilize applications in a policy-based storage system.doc
>
> Content-Type:
>
> application/msword
> Content-Encoding:
>
> base64
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> System to provide policy-based management of kernel and application
> software.doc
>
> Content-Type:
>
> application/msword
> Content-Encoding:
>
> base64
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> System to capture file activity for the purpose of providing
> intelligent data management.doc
>
> Content-Type:
>
> application/msword
> Content-Encoding:
>
> base64
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 2002.01.09 - 04.02 MST |
