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: Bilow who wrote (67812)	3/15/2001 5:13:49 PM
From: charred water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, the patents at issue are the ones in the docket I linked in the original post. The PTO has granted the claims in those patents. It seems like you are wishing it were otherwise. Can you refer to some basis that the preliminary claims in the 1990 filing are pertinent? - Greg

To: Bilow who wrote (67812)	3/15/2001 5:19:53 PM
From: REH	Respond to of 93625

ever hear of "continuance in part" applications?

To: Bilow who wrote (67812)	3/15/2001 8:00:45 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, have you seen the 1990 patent? I have not and unless you have the file wrapper, you have not either. So how do you know whether the 1990 addressed only "multiplexed buses", furthermore, if the specification described, for instance an on chip register which operation was not dependent on a multiplex bus, those claims will survive (the fact that INFINEON "claim" they do not use a multiplex bus, a claim that can be easily challenged) and may apply to SDRAM and DDR DRAM. As for DDR there is still the issue of claims directed to "double clocking" which the multiplex bus issue does not relate to. Zeev

To: Bilow who wrote (67812)	3/15/2001 9:25:41 PM
From: charred water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, After reading the Markman briefs, I can not concur with what you said in message 67812. The only reference to the patent of 1990 is that the patents in suit all have the same specification, which is the same as that abandoned application. The briefs argue over the meaning of the term "bus" and other terms. There is no suggestion that any claims that do not use the word "bus" should be construed as though the claim had used that word. The opposing arguments are quite compelling, and I found myself leaning to the argument that I had most recently read. I guess we'll find out what the court thinks soon enough. So, I humbly suggest that in your original post on this manner, that you: - adopted the opinion that Infineon's argument would entirely prevail, and - extrapolated the significance of that decision to affect claims that don't use a contested definition. Perhaps I have misconstrued, or the reasoning is contained in documents other than the Markman briefs. Please clarify if I err. - Greg