 |
 | Vonage Forum Menu |
| | |
| Vonage Forums |
|
|
| | | |
| Vonage In The News |
| | |
| Vonage Customer Reviews |
| | |
| |
Vonage Here is Cllaim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,104,711
1. A server, comprising:
an
Here is Cllaim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,104,711
1. A server, comprising:
an interface for coupling the server to a system of interlinked packet data networks using packet addresses defined in a first protocol;
a central processing unit coupled to the interface;
a data storage system accessible by the central processing unit; and
software running on the central processing unit for processing a query for translation of a name specified in a second protocol received via the interface to generate a reply message for transmission via the interface, wherein:
the software controls the central processing unit to include an address conforming to the first protocol and relating to a first destination in the reply message if parameters relating to the query satisfy a first criteria defined in a routing control record stored in the data storage system, and
the software controls the central processing unit to include information relating to a second destination in the reply message if parameters relating to the query satisfy a second criteria defined in the routing control record.
* * * *
What the heck does this claim mean? Well, you'd have to read the Patent to really understand it, as well as the file wrapper history. Claims like t his illustrate why armchair analysis is pretty tricky.
But to design around it, all you would have to do is set up a system that eliminates ONE ELEMENT of this claim. The "all elments rule" it is called. You can't partially infringe, just as you can't be partially pregnant.
For example, if you got rid of these "first and second criteria" that alone would do it. Or many be the critera could be stored elsewhere than in a "routing control record".
There is no law against "designing around" and in fact, Patent case law encourages this.
Claims 2 and 3 describe this criteria as:
2. A server as in claim 1, wherein the first and second criteria relate to time windows.
3. A server as in claim 1, wherein the first and second criteria relate to status of a predetermined destination terminal device.
"In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on KSR v. Teleflex, which held that a lower court did not sufficiently consider the question of a patent's obviousness, Vonage asked for a new trial. That request was denied, but the court did rule that the Voip company could raise the issue as part of its appeal."
The teleflex case is not trivial, as the SC has indicated it intends to severely overhaul the John Deere doctrine. The entire thing might get booted on obviousness. The problem is, the SC did not provide a good roadmap for obvious, other than the one they use for pornography ("I know it when I see it"). So the case could be one of first impression.
By then, lawyers fees may have sunk the company!
Read The Full Thread: Vonage: we''ve got a workaround for Verizon patents
• http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070510-vonage-weve-got-a-workaround-for-verizon-patents.html
robertplattbell posted "Here is Cllaim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,104,711
1. A server, comprising:
an" on 09/27/2007 |
|
|
| |
| Vonage Service Plans |
| | |
| Vonage VoIP Members |
| | |
| Vonage Stock Price |
|
Value: 3.07
Change:  +0.15
Up to 15 Minute Delay | | | |
| Site Search |
| | |
|
|
Vonage VoIP Phone Service is redefining communications by offering consumers
& small business VoIP Internet phones, an affordable alternative to traditional phone service.
The Vonage VoIP Forum Generated This Page In: 0.39 Seconds and 404 Pages In The Last 60 Seconds
The Vonage VoIP Forum
|
Members
New 
New Today 5
Yesterday 12
Total 63415
Who Is On Site
Visitors 79
Members 2
Total 81