All: I think the email I just sent applies here, as well. And I echo Tridge's sentiments about giving me a shout if you have some idea for qorkarounds. I'm here to be a sounding board for you. johnl On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:24 AM, <tridge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > > Actually, why not having dosfsck creating _matching_ short names for > > long names? As it only writes short names, it should be safe :-). > > As I mentioned to Boaz, what usually matters for claim construction in > patents is the overall system. I'm sure John Lanza would be happy to > run through it with you if you want a more legally detailed answer, > but basically breaking it up within the one system isn't likely to > help us. > > Like I mentioned to Boaz though, do keep thinking about it. There may > well be a better solution that nobody has suggested yet. You might > also like to read the file wrapper (availble on the USPTO site) which > shows the discussions between the patent office and the > applicant. That is often a good source of inspiration for patent > workarounds. If you think you've found something then it might be a > good idea to raise it with John Lanza first. > > Cheers, Tridge > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
