As for the comment concerning the Z39.50 standards committee meeting, our
claims relate specifically to embedded interactive program objects in World
Wide Web documents, not just downloading executable code for general
document rendering.
>Can anyone here advise on the procedure for forwarding
>counterevidence against a pending patent (like Pei's and Simon's
>below) to the right people at the US Patent and Trademark Office?
>
>
>Pei Wei <pei@gnn.com> writes:
>> And for the record, I just want to point out that the
>> ``technology which enabled Web documents to contain
>> fully-interactive "inline" program objects''
>> was existing in ViolaWWW and was *released* to the
>> public, and in full source code form, even back in 1993...
>> Actual conceptualization and existence occured before '93.
>
>Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu> writes:
>> In that case, the patent is worthless. Dynamic exchange
>> of executable code over the internet for use in rendering
>> documents has been addressed many times before. For
>> example, a standard for the exchange of such information
>> was discussed at the spring 1992 meeting of the
>> implementors working group of NISO sub-committee
>> Z39.50 which took place at the Library of Congress in
>> Washington.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Paul Burchard <burchard@cs.princeton.edu>
>``I'm still learning how to count backwards from infinity...''
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Doyle, Ph.D. http://www.eolas.com
Chairman and CEO voice:312/337-8748
Eolas Technologies Incorporated fax: 312/337-8743
--------------------------------------------------------------------