On 4/10/07, Beth Noveck <noveck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Here's the dilemma. These are all great ideas for how to promote > consensus-based decision-making but we need ways to tie discussion to > specific research tasks. The PTO wants to do this project because we > (the community) are going to supply them with research and analysis > of how that research relates to the claims of the pending > application. Sure. I probably didn't make myself clear- the goal would be to tie the discussion to specific pieces of evidence of prior art, or of specific discussions of obvious. I agree completely that a purely meandering discussion which doesn't result in a concrete statement is useless. Just as no one should need to look at the talk page of a wikipedia entry, the PTO likely shouldn't see the conversation- just the output of it, which is a piece of highly relevant, well-documented prior art, or a very well-argued, well-reasoned statement on obviousness. Luis _______________________________________________ p2patent-developer mailing list p2patent-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/p2patent-developer
