An single invention may have many different sets of claims that describe its innovative features. I suggest you get yourself an USPTO book and read it.
Easy to make insults like that which proves you have ot read my TMF post.
To make life easier, I will give you a copy here:
------
"263" fascination (warning: long)
The "263" patent continues to fascinate (US 5,953,263). Altough I do not believe there is much point at this point of the RMBS<>IFX trial to again start all the patent analysis etc., because we will probably know more what the legal heads think about it in a few days. I was and am fascinated by this process of dividing and continuing patents. It is a bit like making one's will and adding codicils(I don't know if it is called that in English) with special provisions on it later, which of course should not conflict with what is in the original will. (I guess?) Also some guys on the Silicon Investor quoted the "263" again as the saviour even today.
BTW, watch out with these abbreviations, there are two "263" patents, namely 5,953,263 and 5,809,263. The first one is the one in suit.
I did some more digging and would like to share it, even though some posters may find this a renewed opportunity to flame me, but don't worry I am behind triple firewalls:))
I did look into this mostly in march and one post which summarises most is:
boards.fool.com
(in the thread "what's in a bus)
I like to go back to the "pedigree" of the "263"; it's greatgrandmother so to say is the "755" patent (5,319,755), which is a daughter (continuation inclusing streamline continuation) of the mother of all Rambus memory patents, "Ser. No. 510,898, Apr.181990, abandoned."
=======================================
1) The "755" patent was filed sept. 1992 and issued june 1994.
(Integrated circuit I/O using high performance bus interface)
I have shown in the above-quoted post (with details how and why) that every claim of the "755" patent depends on the rambus multiplexed bus
2) The "327 patent (5,513,327) was filed march 1994 and issued april 1996.
(Integrated circuit I/O using a high performance bus interface)
This is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/954,945, filed Sep. 30, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,755, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/510,898, filed Apr. 18, 1990, now abandoned
3) The "334" patent (5,638,334) was filed May 1995 and issued June 1997.
(Integrated circuit I/O using a high performance bus interface)
This is a divisional of application Ser. No. 08/222,646, filed Mar. 31, 1994 now U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,327, which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/954,945, filed Sep. 30, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,755, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 07/510,898 filed Apr. 18, 1990.
4) The "580" patent (5,841,580) was filed febr. 1997 and issued nov.24, 1998.
(Integrated circuit I/O using a high performance bus interface)
Division of Ser No. 448,657, May241995, Pat. No. 5,638,334, which is a division of Ser. No 222,646, Mar.311994, Pat. No. 5,513,327, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 954,945, Sept.301992, Pat. No. 5,319,755, which is a continuation of Ser. No. 510,898, Apr.181990, abandoned.
5) The "263" patent (5,953,263 ) was filed nov.20 1998 and issued sept. 1999.
(Synchronous memory device having a programmable register and method of controlling same)
Continuation of (including streamline cont.) Ser. No. 798,520, Feb. 10, 1997, Pat. No. 5,841,580.
This is the complete pedigree afaik of the "263" patent.
Note that each filing date is before the issuing date of the preceding patent, in one case by 4 days:)
=====================================
Why is this important? Well, as we can see it is a continuation of a division of a division of a continuation of the "755" patent. Also as claim #1 it contains the "mode register" without mentioning in that first claim the multiplexed bus (although the multiplexed bus is clearly present in the abstract). This could then be a claim independent of the Markman ruling.
Now let's look at what continuations and divisions are, before a certain Infringeon again jumps all over me:)
A good description I found at:
dcs1.com
Re: Continuation, Divisional and Continuation-In-Part Patent Applications
Basically a division is where a (too large patent) is divided into several patents. A division may not contain new or different claims. A continuation is where one wants to add something to the original patent.
snippet from the above link:
If, for example, an applicant is unable to obtain claims, or does not obtain claims with the desired breadth in the original or "parent" application, he or she may file a "continuation application" under the provisions of 35 U.S.C § 120. The continuation application may be filed at any time prior to abandonment of the parent application, or prior to the issuance of the parent application as a patent.
and
Still yet another scenario is when an inventor makes an improvement or modification to his or her invention. The inventor may file a continuation-in-part application. As the name implies, part of the teachings of the parent application are carried forward in the application, and part of the application is new. The effective filing date for all of the subject matter which was in the parent application is the date the parent application was filed. For all new subject matter, the effective filing date is the filing date of the continuation-in-part application.
Comment: imo this means that the "new subject matter", for example a mode register loose from the mux bus, would be subject to "prior art" testing. I do not know this but it seems reasonable.
I also assume that streamline continuation means that the continuation refers back to possibly the patent before of which the mother was a continuation etc.
=========================
Back to the mode register, claim 1 of "263".
We already know that the great-great-grandmother of the "263" is the "755" and that the "755" is limited to the mux bus. So we have to follow the trail from "755" and "263" and see where the independence creeps in.
The "327" patent is mostly about the double edged clocking scheme, there is no mention of the mode register.
The "334" patent is about memory sections and addressing (not limited to dram), but does not mention a mode register.
The "580" patent clearly has the mux bus in the abstract.
( information and the bus has substantially fewer bus lines than the number of bits in a single address, and the bus carries device-select information without the need for separate device-select lines connected directly to individual devices.)
It also says in the abstract:
The present invention includes modifications to prior-art devices to allow them to implement the new features of this invention.
Now in this patent the mode register (called access-time register) comes into play in claim #1 and of course in many subsequent claims by reference:
1. A computer system comprising:
a bus;
a semiconductor device coupled to the bus, the semiconductor device comprising an access-time register operative to store a value indicative of a delay time for the semiconductor device to respond to a bus transaction request; and
a bus master coupled to the bus, the bus master transmitting the value and the bus transaction request to the semiconductor device via the bus, wherein the semiconductor device responds to the bus transaction request after the delay time.
And from here the "263" patent derives the "mode register claim"
So if it is correctly claimed in the "580" patent is is also Ok in the "263" patent.
============================
Pfft, that was a long way:
Now to play the devil's advocate:
Q1: Does the fact that the abstract limits the invention to the mux bus mean something?
Q2: How can the "580" be a division of the "334" where the "334" does not mention a delay register at all?
Q3: If the delay register is first introduced independently from the mux bus in the "580" patent, doesn't that mean that prior art before the filing date (febr. 1997) takes precedence in the case of the non multiplexed bus?
Good stuff to get your teeth into.
If I have made a mistake in the research here, which is quite possible due to the many documents involved, pse let me know and I will repost corrected.
Cheers
Cor |
