Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: blake_paterson who wrote (44905)	6/18/2000 4:19:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

blake, not in "continuations", continuations can bring new material (a new specification is actually submitted) and can have new material. You must be thinking about "divisional" applications, when the examiner forces you to split the patent into more than one application, because there are unrelated inventions that need to be examined in different classes, or when they split "apparatus for..." and "method to ...", because the method can be used with other apparati, or the apparatus can be used with other methods. Zeev

To: blake_paterson who wrote (44905)	6/18/2000 4:29:00 PM
From: Scumbria	Respond to of 93625

Blake, <<It was not needed in 1990.>> And therefore not obvious? I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the history of the patent. This is the kind of legal question which makes these cases difficult to resolve. Scumbria

To: blake_paterson who wrote (44905)	6/18/2000 5:01:00 PM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Blake, This guy Scumbria (Bilow(2)) sure knows how to dance around a topic. Are these two clips from two of his posts contradictory or am I missing something? >>I most certainly have not looked at all 87 patents. However, I have looked at the key SDRAM patent (as mentioned in the conference call), and have provided a significant amount of information to you as to why I consider Rambus case to be quite challengeable.<< >>I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know the history of the patent.* This is the kind of legal question which makes these cases difficult to resolve.*<<