SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (69091)3/25/2001 3:40:15 PM
From: The Prophet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
You still don't get it. Validity and infringement are separate concepts.



To: Bilow who wrote (69091)3/25/2001 3:43:48 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93625
 
The court will indeed make the decision on validity of later "Sdram covering" patents, but whether the teachings were intrinsically in the 1990 specification (not the claims since that one never went to "claims"). Since neither you or I have access to that 1990 specification, neither of us can really say with any expectations of rationality what the court will decide. The fact also remains, that you do not have to intend to cover SDRAM in the 1990 if what you describe there is part of the SDRAM final design. How can one intend to cover something that does not exist yet? But, the fact that apparently no one got patents on the SDRAM designs, might be an indication that the examiners considered the 1990 and subsequent applications as prior art to SDRAM and SDRAM an obvious extension. Thus, the SDRAM could come under the "equivalency" doctrine. The interesting fact here is that (under some circumstances) the original inventor can obtain a patent on "obvious extensions" of his own prior patents, others cannot. If SDRAM is indeed an obvious extension of the 1990, the judge may be free to direct the Jury to accept the PTO allowance of the later patents.

Zeev