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 (67847)	3/15/2001 8:16:22 PM
From: charred water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl, There is a complete thread on this issue. My reply to Cordob is: boards.fool.com Other messages follow if you switch to the threaded links. Cor, Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You say: <clip> Conclusion: in the 755 patent all claims refer to the bus (address and data combined) And: the '263' patent is based and claims priority as far as dates is concerned to this '755' patent. Even though some of the claims of '263' may not read "bus", they should if they want to claim priority back to 1992 (indirectly to 1990, the abandoned patent). </clip> I have not checked the '755 patent, but will if it is pertinent. With respect to the '263 patent, you say that the claims 'should' 'read "bus"', but, in fact, they do not. Are you suggesting a reversable error by the USPTO, or that somehow the "bus" is inferred by the fact of continuation? Either possibility seems unlikely to me, but I would appreciate a referral to the source that has led you to believe either. After all, different claims within a single patent can have where the 'apparatus' being comprised of different elements. - Greg