[ih] Why the six month draft expiration ?

[Ross Callon]

Either could be used to invalidate patent claims. 

However, it is common for a patent to have somewhat vague claims. There is frequently a question “what does this claim really mean”. Prior art can often be used to argue to limit the interpretation of a claim. “What we do is what is in all of this prior art that preceded this patent, so the claim must mean this other thing” is a possible argument. 

To me the six month expiration of an internet draft, plus the public availability of old expired internet drafts, is a brilliant system. The expiration is a strong argument that “this is not a standard, it is expired, do not implement it”. However, having the drafts still available is very useful for a variety of reasons. Understanding history and limiting patent claims being two of the reasons that access to expired Internet Drafts is valuable. 

thanks, Ross 

> On Feb 3, 2024, at 3:35 PM, Vint Cerf via Internet-history <internet-history at elists.isoc.org> wrote:
> 
> Karl,
> under the current "first to file" USPTO rules, would the primary grounds
> for invalidating an issued patent claim be validated public prior art or a
> prior patent grant that conflicts with the later one?
> 
> vint