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: cordob who wrote (71243)	4/29/2001 7:33:44 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

I did not insult you. But apparently in your arrogance you took my suggestion as an insult. I have already seen your posts and I am not impressed by them. At best they are verbose and at their worst they are entirely misleading. There, now you have been properly insulted. Perhaps, next time this happens you will be able to tell the difference. <G>

To: cordob who wrote (71243)	4/29/2001 8:01:08 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Cor, the abstract has no bearings whatsoever on the specification and surely on the claims. It is rare that an abstract limits the claims, in some cases the specification might, but I have had countless going with the PTO, where they wanted to hold me (and often did) to the letter of a prior art claim, even if the inventor in his wildest dream did not anticipate the claims I was trying to get. That is one reason that wording claims is so critical, and lawyers will tell you that they on purpose word the claims extremely broadly in the first "go", and then, if necessary, they narrow these down during the examination process. Zeev