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 : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: delmarbill who wrote (22079)	7/18/2000 12:54:38 PM
From: Greg h2o	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

imagine the possibilities of jolt.... Winstar (WCII). I like Winstar for several reasons. First of all, it's the current leader in fixed wireless broadband deployment. It will offer its services in 60 markets by the end of this year, and it currently has "roof rights" (permission to deploy roof top antennas) for over 4800 buildings. Winstar also holds the largest amount of 38 GHz licenses in the country (and a lot at 28 GHz and below). The company has stakes in Latin America, Europe and Asia. It also has sensible partnerships with Williams Communication, Metromedia Fiber Network Inc. (MFNX), and Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU) Through Williams and MFN, it has access to a fiber network that connects each of its markets. And Lucent provides Winstar's equipment. I also like Winstar's building-centric sales approach. First they get the right to put an antennae on a building (within a three-mile, direct line of site to one of their hub antennas), then they unleash the sales force on the tenants in the building, floor by floor. The product they offer is a voice and data (Internet), local and long distant, bundled service that's cheaper than that of the ILECs (incumbent local exchange carriers-Baby Bells).

To: delmarbill who wrote (22079)	7/18/2000 9:49:22 PM
From: delmarbill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

Is Luminent using a "cold-wall reactor"? Seems as if issues of non-obviousness are still alive with this '098 patent. Again, I'm not sure if this will have any impact on Luminent, but since they boast about their new MOCVD facility, it would be nice to know. July -1998 SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY SLIPS AWAY FROM GOVERNMENT Prepared by Yitai Hu [Judges: Michel (author), Newman, and Clevenger] In Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, No. 97-5065 (Fed. Cir. June 15, 1998) the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ("CFC") denying a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and vacated a summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 103, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed and that the CFC had improperly drawn inferences against the nonmovant. Rockwell International Corp. ("Rockwell") owns a patent on a metal-organic chemical vapor deposition ("MOCVD") process for growing Group III/V semiconductor materials ("the ‘098 patent"). In general, chemical vapor deposition ("CVD") processes are used to produce epitaxial layers, or thin, single crystal films. Rockwell brought suit against the United States in the CFC alleging infringement of the ‘098 patent. SDL, Inc. ("SDL") intervened as a third-party defendant, and together with the United States filed motions for summary judgment of anticipation and of obviousness. The trial court interpreted the asserted claims and found that the preambles operated as claim limitations that limited the claims to a process for producing an epitaxial film of Group III/V semiconductors. Citing the prosecution history of the ‘098 patent, the trial court further limited the claims to a CVD process using a "cold-wall reactor," an interpretation that none of the parties contested. The CFC adopted Rockwell's definition of "cold-wall reactor" and denied the motion for summary judgment of anticipation, stating that genuine issues of material fact existed whether any of the four prior art references advanced by the Defendants disclosed a process for growing an epitaxial film. However, the trial court concluded that the same prior art references rendered the asserted claims of the ‘098 patent obvious. On appeal, SDL argued that the trial court improperly adopted Rockwell's definition of "cold-wall reactor" and erred in denying the motion for summary judgment of anticipation. During prosecution of the ‘098 patent, the applicant had attempted to overcome a prior art rejection by referring to an article by Stringfellow et al., which distinguished "cold wall" apparatus from a "hot wall" apparatus in organometallic processes. SDL argued that the article defined a cold-wall reactor as one in which the walls of the reaction chamber are kept cool enough to avoid significant pyrolysis of the reactants on or near the walls of the reactor. The Federal Circuit disagreed, concluding that the article indicated that the purpose of a cold-wall system is to get the substrate much hotter than the walls. The Federal Circuit agreed with the CFC in denying the motion for summary judgment of anticipation because genuine issues of material fact existed concerning whether any of the four prior art references advanced by the Defendants disclosed a process of growing an epitaxial layer. In vacating the summary judgment of obviousness, the Federal Circuit held that the genuine issues of material fact that precluded the CFC from rendering a summary judgment of anticipation should also preclude a summary judgment of obviousness. It concluded that the Defendants had failed to prove that combining the references would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art how to perform the missing epitaxial growth step with a reasonable likelihood of success. The Federal Circuit also ruled that the CFC had erred in inferring that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known to combine the four prior art references to achieve single crystal growth of Group III/V semiconductors using organometallic, a specific limitation of the asserted claims. On summary judgment, the evidence must be viewed favorably to the nonmovant, with doubts resolved and reasonable inferences drawn in the nonmovant's favor. The CFC's failure to consider whether any of the prior art references would have suggested or taught the process steps for successful epitaxial growth was tantamount to drawing an adverse inference against the nonmovant, Rockwell. In addition, the Federal Circuit found genuine issues of material fact relating to the secondary considerations for nonobviousness including (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (3) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art which precluded summary judgment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: delmarbill who wrote (22079)	7/19/2000 6:02:10 PM
From: Peter.Messersmith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

Re: Rockwell patent suit The Company has received notices from third party alleging possible infringement of patents with respect to product features or manufacturing processes. Management believes such notices are common in the communications industry because of the large number of patents that have been filed on these subjects. The Company's policy is to discuss these notices with the senders in an effort to demonstrate that the Company's products and/or processes do not violate any patents. The Company is currently involved in such discussions with Lucent, Ortel, Rockwell and the Lemelson Foundation. The Company does not believe that any of its products or processes violates any of the patents asserted by these parties and the Company further believes that it has meritorious defenses if any legal action is taken by any of these parties. However if one or more of these parties was to assert a claim and gain a conclusion unfavorable to the Company such claims could materially and adversely affect the business, operating results and financial condition of the Company. freeedgar.com