On Mon, 2004-11-22 at 18:29, Tim Churches wrote: > At a glance, there would not appear to be much in the way of novelty in > the claims, and several groups here in Australia plan to lodge > objections to the application. Others may wish to object to the > applications in their own countries. If anyone can suggest clear prior > art which was published before April 2002, and ideally before April > 2001, then please let me know (or post details to this list so the prior > art can be shared around).
Thanks for the heads up Tim. It likely will come down to who has the time/money to properly fight this. What is the name of the organization that caused the review for MS's patent application on the FAT filesystem? Anyway, anyone of the open source EMR's being discussed in the late 90's would meet all 50 claims in this patent application. Certainly FreePM met all of those and most if not all of the claims were discussed on the mailing lists. http://www.mail-archive.com/freepm_discuss%40listbot.com/maillist.html https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freepm-discuss Also Jeff Buckbinder at Freemed, Horst Herb at Gnumed and Alex Caldwell at TkFamilyPractice can lay claims to these same ideas of using distributed access to a central record for patients. HTH, TIm
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
