<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16945" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Yes, you are correct because Freedom Scientific can
appeal. Bob </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=athead@bigpond.net.au href="mailto:athead@bigpond.net.au">Andrew
Head</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=tektalkdiscussion@accessibleworld.org
href="mailto:tektalkdiscussion@accessibleworld.org">Welcome to the Tek Talk
Discussion list!</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 11, 2009 2:45
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Tektalkdiscussion] Fw:
Freedom Scientific Vs. GW micro</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>so I take it the case is still going
on?</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=boacosta@pacbell.net href="mailto:boacosta@pacbell.net">Bob
Acosta</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=tektalkdiscussion@accessibleworld.org
href="mailto:tektalkdiscussion@accessibleworld.org">tektalk discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 11, 2009 9:52
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Tektalkdiscussion] Fw:
Freedom Scientific Vs. GW micro</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=boacosta@pacbell.net href="mailto:boacosta@pacbell.net">Bob Acosta</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=boacosta@pacbell.net
href="mailto:boacosta@pacbell.net">Bob Acosta</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:03 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Freedom Scientific Vs. GW micro</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><STRONG>From the Associate Editor:</STRONG> <STRONG>The <EM>Braille
Monitor</EM> first reported on the Freedom Scientific patent-infringement
lawsuit against GW Micro in February 2009. In summary Freedom Scientific
accused GW Micro of using without proper authority its patented "document
placeholder," technology that enables an access screen reader to return to a
specific place on a Webpage. As far as we know, this case continues to make
its way through the federal court system.</STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG>On Friday, October 9, 2009, we learned, however, that the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office issued an administrative ruling suggesting that
Freedom Scientific's document placeholder patent may not be valid. This
decision remains subject to appeal, but, if this ruling is upheld, it surely
will undermine the essence of the plaintiff's claim. We reprint below the
following release posted on the Blind Access Journal blog and circulated
widely among other assistive technology lists and Webpages. Here it
is:</STRONG></P>
<P>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has reexamined a patent held by the
maker of a screen reader for blind computer users in connection with an
infringement lawsuit filed against a competing company. Reliable sources
hailed the move as a significant victory for the defendant.</P>
<P>The document placemarker patent, held by Freedom Scientific, Inc., covers
a specialized screen-reading capability that allows blind users to save
their position on a Webpage and return to the same place at a later time.
The company's Job Access with Speech (JAWS) screen-reading software
incorporates this feature.</P>
<P>In a July 15, 2008, complaint filed in the United States District Court,
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, the self-proclaimed "world's
leading manufacturer of assistive technology products for those who are
vision impaired" accused GW Micro, the maker of the competing Window-Eyes
screen reader, of deliberate patent infringement, claiming its placemarker
technology is the same as that described in the patent. According to court
documents Freedom Scientific is seeking an injunction requiring GW Micro to
stop including the placemarker feature in their product, asks for
significant unspecified financial compensation for the infringement, and
requests recovery of legal fees.</P>
<P>“I believe that this technology shouldn't have been patented to begin
with," said Doug Geoffray, vice president of development with GW Micro. "It
obviously was around way before what they've done. We have stated that our
version, Window-Eyes 3.1 back in 1999, had previous position
capability."</P>
<P>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agreed. In a reexamination of
Freedom Scientific's patent, at the request of GW Micro's attorneys, the
office rejected all claims to the invention.</P>
<P>"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was patented
or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in
public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date
of application for patent in the United States," stated a published document
describing the reexamination as the basis for the patent's rejection on the
grounds that the technology had already been invented. The document also
cited two existing patents and the availability of IBM's Home Page Reader, a
product employing place-marker technology prior to the Freedom Scientific
patent, in its reasoning behind the decision. "We take that as a positive
sign,” Geoffray said.</P>
<P>"It's a victory," said Dennis Karjala, Jack E. Brown Professor of Law,
Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, and Technology at
Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. "There's no
question that, if the reexamination decision is upheld, that's the end of
it. There is no patent." He said Freedom Scientific may still have some
cards to play in this case. "The patent owner in a reexamination proceeding
may appeal," Karjala said. "It goes to an appeals board within the Patent
Office, and then they can later seek judicial review. This thing could go on
for a while." According to the reexamination document, the Patent Office
must receive a response from Freedom Scientific by October 28 if it wishes
to appeal the decision.</P>
<P>Karjala said the legal trend points to a probable GW Micro victory.
"Because the Supreme Court has been reviewing so many of their cases with an
obvious eye to overturning them, the Patent Office is pretty sensitive now
that they're being accused of being too patent-friendly," said Karjala. "My
guess is, once you got a ruling by the examiner that the patent is invalid,
I'd say the chances are pretty good it will be upheld by the board in the
Patent Office. If it's upheld by the board, the chances that a court would
overturn it in this atmosphere are pretty slim."</P>
<P>Freedom Scientific representatives declined to comment, citing the
ongoing litigation.</P>
<P>Notes:</P>
<UL>
<LI>The examiner cited Patent 6085161 describing the invention of a system
for assigning and playing specific sounds when a Webpage changes or the
user encounters a specific Webpage element such as a header or list. All
of the claims in Freedom Scientific’s patent were rejected based on the
positioning techniques described in this "sonification" system.
<LI>The examiner also cited Patent 7058887 describing a means of
determining the position on a Webpage according to user-defined settings,
including the page’s domain. This IBM patent was referenced in the
reexamination as clarification for the rejection of the sixth claim.
<LI>The examiner also referred to the IBM Home Page Reader version 2.5
manual.
<LI>Ex Parte Reexamination, Control Number 90/010,473, Central
Re-examination Unit, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Visit the Patent
Application Information Retrieval Website and enter the specified control
number to obtain this document. The Patent Office provides this document
only in scanned image PDF, which is inaccessible to blind readers. An
accessible copy of this document has been made available using Kurzweil
K1000 version 11.03 optical character recognition software.
<LI>An accessible copy of Freedom Scientific's complaint was made
available in the July 24, 2008, article about the lawsuit.<BR></LI></UL>
<DIV align=center>
<DIV align=center>
<P>(
</P></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Tektalkdiscussion
mailing
list<BR>Tektalkdiscussion@accessibleworld.org<BR>http://accessibleworld.org/mailman/listinfo/tektalkdiscussion_accessibleworld.org<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Tektalkdiscussion
mailing
list<BR>Tektalkdiscussion@accessibleworld.org<BR>http://accessibleworld.org/mailman/listinfo/tektalkdiscussion_accessibleworld.org<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>