Originally Posted by Steven N.
Don't forget claims 16-21 being fully tied to 15.
So are you just angry? Your AWK comparison has been easily defeated and is simply a red herring but you keep on it like a rabid pit bull.
You still haven't defeated it, you said you had by saying that awk scripts didn't all recognise phone numbers, but that was never even mentioned in the claim. By the way, if you used any of the more advanced development environments back in the 90s you'd have seen they they also did things such as recognise function names as you typed them, then permit you to jump to definition from them. That would also infringe.
Are you being intentionally dense?
AWK may very well be part of the tool set used to implement the other methods but AWK, in no way shape or form, implements by itself the claims.
You keep saying that but you haven't actually pointed to the part of the claim that it doesn't infringe - repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true.
Given you are very unlikely to be willing to learn and educate your self, this is all I will be saying on the matter:
All I'm asking you to do is to show how something which you insist doesn't infringe, actually doesn't infringe. It should be easy - without you having to pull stuff into the claim that it doesn't actually say. Clearly you are unable to do that, and prefer to attack me personally rather than admit it - I find that rather sad - though certainly very common amongst forum warriors.
Oh, and of claims 16-21 only one is relevant to this case. Claim 19, which does nothing more than restrict claim 15 to the case where the data structures recognised are strings. Does awk not do strings? That's a shocker.