Hi Zeev Hed; Re: "Since the original 1990 patent application (the specification) seems to have been broad enough to cover SDRAM (which was not yet in existence or in public domain), patents that derive from that specification surely can contain broadening of the original claims, if indeed the original specification can be construed to have covered these."
It's clear from the Markman arguments by Infineon, together with the counter arguments by Rambus, that the original 1990 patent claims did not include SDRAM. One can read the claims from the 1992 patent, and they clearly do not include SDRAM. This was well understood by industry, and by Rambus' own employees.
Re: "The PTO is the one that decides if the original specification indeed covers these "new" embodiments (SDRAM) and by allowing the later SDRAM related patents, the PTO declared that RMBS already in 1990 invented those aspects of SDRAM which are in "question"."
This is technically true, but it's moot. While the patent office does decide what new etc., etc., etc., are included in a filing, it is the court system that decides whether the expanded claims are valid or not. The question before the court is not "did the patent office grant a patent covering SDRAM?", instead it is "is the patent that covers SDRAM a valid one?"
Basically, you're reciting stuff that is (tacitly) agreed to by both sides. If it were that simple a case, "infringement or not", the judge would have already made a summary ruling for infringement (or Infineon would have stipulated to it), and we would be hearing JEDEC only arguments. That is not the case. Infineon is arguing invalid patent, and so the very legality of the actions of the patent office is what is being argued. You repeatedly make this misrepresentation.
-- Carl |
