tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post3342761550961089547..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Board decisions involving the Wayback Machine to show status as prior art (Part II)Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3125910712459014162014-01-22T17:21:25.925-05:002014-01-22T17:21:25.925-05:00yeah that first case where they reversed seems a b...yeah that first case where they reversed seems a bit off the mark to me. The examiner is relying on the page in existence at the time designated by the wayback machine, not the current page. And as you noted, wayback machine makes a copy of the page as it existed. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-73907282679136276692014-01-21T17:31:57.698-05:002014-01-21T17:31:57.698-05:00Dunno. What's at issue is basically how to int...Dunno. What's at issue is basically how to interpret the Wayback Machine printouts, right? So maybe a POSITA in this case knows about computers, and can therefore understand this stuff. But a POSITA in a chemical case wouldn't necessarily know how to interpret it? Just speculating. <br /><br />The other possibility is that the author of the opinion typed in "POSITA would understand" rather than "person would understand" without really thinking about the distinction. Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-16898618586345683382014-01-20T23:44:03.433-05:002014-01-20T23:44:03.433-05:00Regarding the Board's comments in Ex parte Agu...Regarding the Board's comments in Ex parte Aguilera, why is the understanding of one of ordinary skill relevant to establishing the date of reference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com