|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
From: Perry and Lorae Merritt (plmerritt, hypermall dot net) Date: 2002.01.08 - 17.22 MST
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Thanks for the updates. I put most of Jay's in also, so I'll jave to see what you did. Maybe I can just use your version, renumber the drawings and the text and be done with it. Not sure how you're reading my comment about England. I don't know the status. I haven't been able to get ahold of Barry to find out. That's it. I'm just about finished packing the lab at Tricord. I"ve probably got an hour or so left tomorrow. I'll start on the next patent then. Jay, do you have a dummy post script printer set up on your Windows box to create a .ps file? What Linux utility do you use to create a .pdf file? P ----- Original Message ----- From: June Mullins To: antera, cryptofreak dot org Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 4:05 PM Subject: Re: First patent 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 is the antera mailing list. To unsubscribe, email majordomo, cryptofreak dot org with message body `unsubscribe antera'. Or, for more information, visit http://www.cryptofreak.org/.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 2002.01.09 - 04.02 MST |
