Comment Re:*That* was interesting (Score 1) 218
My understanding is that the court told McEwan to go pound sand last year. Do you have more up-to-date info?
While one examiner from the USPTO initially suggested that key claims may have been anticipated by Fullerton, their final ruling was in favor of The Regents of the University of California, assignee of the MIR patent (5,361,070) in dispute. (This work was performed by the inventor, Thomas McEwan, while an employee of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The final USPTO decision (a copy of which can be found at Rexexam, stated that "[a]s a result of reexamination, it has been determined that: The patentability of claims 1-20 is confirmed. New claims 21-49 are added and determined to be patentable."
Thus, all of the original claims made in the "MIR" patent were upheld by the USPTO; and the patent was furthered strengthened by the addition of 29 new claims.
While one examiner from the USPTO initially suggested that key claims may have been anticipated by Fullerton, their final ruling was in favor of The Regents of the University of California, assignee of the MIR patent (5,361,070) in dispute. (This work was performed by the inventor, Thomas McEwan, while an employee of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory). The final USPTO decision (a copy of which can be found at Rexexam, stated that "[a]s a result of reexamination, it has been determined that: The patentability of claims 1-20 is confirmed. New claims 21-49 are added and determined to be patentable."
Thus, all of the original claims made in the "MIR" patent were upheld by the USPTO; and the patent was furthered strengthened by the addition of 29 new claims.
