[wnurse]

wow, after many post, you still do not get it. Yes, it shows patents that are issued. It may/may not show all patents that are allowed. This is getting tiring.. so i'll tell you what. You win. I don't even know why i bothered to reply initially. You read the article, thought you had a gotcha moment and even when informed that you have not caught anyone with their pants down, you continue with your insistence. Is there anyone in this forum that said the database doesn't show patents issued?. Is it possible for a patent to be issued and not be in the database?. Is it possible for it to be allowed and not be in the database? I guess not. I'll give up the argument and let you have your gotcha moment.

[lhudd]

read my post above that outlines the difference between ISSUED and ALLOWED. The examiner says the patent was ALLOWED. Patents do not show up in the database until they are ISSUED. There is no patent until is issues. If one of you would like to provide me with the serial number, I can look up the application in PAIR and let you know what that Database says.
He's wants to keep his identity anonymous because he doesn't want his employers to know he's on a message board commenting on the status of pending applications.
In case you didn't realize, I'm a Patent Attorney.

[mahenry]

In reply to:

---

He's wants to keep his identity anonymous because he doesn't want his employers to know he's on a message board commenting on the status of pending applications.

---

i'd say that's pretty true /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
lhudd's right. see, it's in condition for allowance. if microsoft pays the fees then it'll be issued. microsoft could very well not accept the reasons for allowance (which is unusual, but i've seen it done) in the event the reasons aren't very good.
lhudd could confirm this info using public pair, but it's not necessary as i'm not making this up.
now, the biggest problem with the appleinsider article is it's not very thorough in terms of the 'what next' for apple.
as maccentral points out, they could file for an interference, swear behind the reference used in the examiner's rejection, or they could do all sorts of things like file for a request for continued examination. or they could just file an appeal.
i can't say i have enough experience to tell you what apple will do in this case, but i do know which of the above options apple took and probably shouldn't say which. but i highly doubt apple will give up on this based upon what's gone on in the case so far.
one thing appleinsider shouldn't have done is scream over a final rejection (and how they came upon this rejecion i'm curious to know as it isn't really public knowledge) because, in a way, a final rejection means very little given all the options apple still has to get their patent.

[elroy]

wnurse, I bow before your obviously superior intellect.
Just remember: never admit you're wrong, or that you missed something (even though a patent lawyer just confirmed that you did), just insult, insult, insult. THAT'S how you influence people on message boards.

[Dan Frakes]

Reminder: These forums aren't the place for personal insults and ad hominem attacks (on either side). Let's bring this discussion down a notch, shall we?

[miketh]

Pay for a license from Microsoft for this?? I doubt that!