3 ms·

You are confusing a whole bunch of things (sorry, i can't edit my original response on mobile fast enough to correct a few errors. I think you took the wrong t

You are confusing a whole bunch of things (sorry, i can't edit my original response on mobile fast enough to correct a few errors. I think you took the wrong thing away from the "unrelated to the prior art" sentence). 1. This is not a court :) In fact, the rejection is specifically not binding. "(1) The objective of the international preliminary examination is to formulate a preliminary and non-binding opinion on the questions whether the claimed invention appears to be novel, to involve an inventive step (to be non-obvious), and to be industrially applicable." 2. As i said, they are saying claim 1 is not inventive, regardless of those references anyway. See 6.13.4 D1 is Jarek's original paper, a reference Google gave, not Jarek. You are right that they have a long discussion of these emails, but then decide they don't matter anyway to claim 1 in 6.13.4. Perhaps you missed that. They even explicitly say that D5/D6 do not matter in practice. The rest is just random examiner prognostication. You'll also see they are not cited in reference to any other claims. Jarek (and the author's) claim was the emails are important and that he told them what they patented. As you can see, the preliminary ruling was in fact, that they are not really relevant or important to the patentability of the claim. In this case, they so far have explicitly decided it would be unpatentable regardless of whether he had ever sent the emails at all! (The claim they are patenting ANS, i have no opinion on. I highlighted a fairly small portion of the article i believe is shoddy reporting, and i still believe that)

allenz 8y ago
> I highlighted a fairly small portion of the article i believe is shoddy reporting > Jarek (and the author's) claim was the emails are important The claim is: "Duda says he suggested the exact technique Google is trying to patent in a 2014 email exchange with Google engineers". Which is true. Neither Jarek nor the reporter claim that these emails were the first instance of prior art. They emphasize the emails to show that Jarek was working with Google engineers before they stole his work.

allenz 8y ago

> I highlighted a fairly small portion of the article i believe is shoddy reporting > Jarek (and the author's) claim was the emails are important The claim is: "Duda says he suggested the exact technique Google is trying to patent in a 2014 email exchange with Google engineers". Which is true. Neither Jarek nor the reporter claim that these emails were the first instance of prior art. They emphasize the emails to show that Jarek was working with Google engineers before they stole his work.