home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.crypt
- Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!chemabs!jac54
- From: jac54@cas.org ()
- Subject: Re: LUC Public-key Encryption
- Message-ID: <1992Dec16.180451.20946@cas.org>
- Sender: usenet@cas.org
- Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
- References: <1992Dec11.134309.29150@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1992Dec11.171631.26834@linus.mitre.org> <Bz98BI.BMG@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:04:51 GMT
- Lines: 16
-
- In article <Bz98BI.BMG@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
- >Quoting bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) in article <1992Dec11.171631.26834@linus.mitre.org>:
- >>
- >>He should not be able to patent this, since what he has done was all
- >>known before.
- >
- >Since when did that stop anyone?
-
- It stops them about 90% of the time. Next time you look at a
- patent application, look for the search report (at the back).
- This gives the result of a search for prior and related art.
- In many cases documents that indicate that the application
- cannot be considered to include an inventive step are identified.
- These can disqualify the application.
-
- Alec Chambers
-