Dave - Re: "Gilbert Hyatt"
Gil Hyatt was an engineer who worked on a programmable computer (his own company) in the late 1960's and early 1970's. He actually received some backing from either Intel or Bob Noyce and I believe Intel may have provided some fabrication capability for some of the devices he designed.
Gil never worked directly for Intel (to the best of my knowledge) and I have never met him.
He took his idea and submitted it to the patent office - I'm not certain the original patent application was for a "micropocessor". After many rejections and re-submittals to the patent office, Hyatt also changed the "focus" of the patent application and called it a "microprocessor". Clearly, there were economic incentives to call it that!
After about 20 years, in the late 1980s/early 1990s, he emerged from obscurity because he convinced the Patent office that he indeed invented the microprocessor! This came as a shock to the industry - and a real shocker for Intel.
A few years ago, his patent was reb\viked by the Patent Office.
Here is an interview with him:
{====================================}
Copyright (c) Electronic Buyers News
A Conversation With Gilbert Hyatt
By Mark Hachman
n 1990, the U.S. Patent Office shocked the semiconductor
community when it credited Gilbert Hyatt with the invention of
the single-chip microprocessor and microcontroller.
Recently, the patent office overturned its ruling, permitting
ex-TI engineer Gary Boone to lay claim to being the MPU's
inventor. EBN associate editor Mark Hachman recently sat
down with Hyatt to clear the air.
EBN: How did you get started as an electronics inventor?
Hyatt: Let me start with a little background. I graduated with a
master's degree in electrical engineering in the early 1960s and
worked my way up as a research engineer with Teledyne until I
left in 1968 to form my own company. Microcomputer Inc., my
company, was supposed to develop a new-generation computer
that was no bigger or more powerful than the trend was, but
instead was smaller, less expensive, and more embedded.
EBN: When did you introduce your first product?
Hyatt: I built the first microcomputer in 1968 as a breadboard,
and proceeded on two fronts: I had my chips built by both Texas
Instruments and Intel, and then I pursued venture-capital financing.
I got both done at the same time by finding a venture-capital
group in Silicon Valley which included Dr. Noyce of Intel, who
provided the opportunity for a foundry to build my chips. I received
venture capital from the group, which included Hambrecht & Quist
from San Francisco, to finance my company.
We proceeded to open our doors, hire people, and produce
prototype equipment while we began to develop our single-chip
technology. We had to support ourselves, and the prototype
system was a viable product by itself until we were able to reduce
it to single-chip form.
EBN: So what stopped the single-chip development?
Hyatt: In early 1971 the investors precipitated a takeover, found
that they couldn't take the technology because there were
protections built in, and closed down the company in September
1971. Surprisingly, that was the same month that Intel introduced
their microcomputer product.
EBN: Was that the introduction of the 4004?
Hyatt: Yes, it was. Although they had been selling prior to that,
that was their first public announcement.
EBN: Did you have a name for your product?
Hyatt: The Microcomputer, the name of our next company, came
from the name of the product. Our business plan in 1968
developed the concept of a microcomputer: a small, inexpensive
computer that could be used everywhere.
EBN: What happened after the company closed?
Hyatt: After this company closed down, I began consulting for the
aerospace industry and also learned how to prosecute patent
applications. Then I proceeded to prosecute my microcomputer
patent application, and other applications.
EBN: How long did that process take?
Hyatt: There were substantial delays at the patent office. In the
microcomputer chain, there was one patent reviewed by a
special department at the patent office that was delayed more
than 10 years, just for that one review.
EBN: What kind of delays?
Hyatt: There were many delays for analysis and appeals. For
normal prosecution of a patent on a device with cutting-edge
technology, examiners are more reluctant to issue the patent, and
they tend to drag and delay.
EBN: How long was it before the patent office had determined
that you held rights to the patent and you could begin licensing
your design?
Hyatt: It took 20 years. The 10 years was only one of the delays
issued by the patent office, and the patent was granted 20 years
after it was filed, in 1990.
EBN: What were the specifics of that patent claim?
Hyatt: Let me get into the specifics of the point you brought up,
the "claim."
A patent really isn't an invention; it is claims that are a grant by the
government to permit the owner of the patent to prevent others
from making, using, and selling the claimed invention. Each claim
is a separate invention, even though they may be quite related.
With the microcomputer patent, which has the final three numbers
"516"-the "516 patent," for short- there are approximately 50
claims. About half of them are directed at a single-chip computer,
and the rest are directed at an integrated circuit computer.
In the interference procedure from Texas Instruments, only those
with the words "single chip" are cited within the interference. The
rest of them stand, good as gold, unchallenged.
The NCS4 was a multiple-chip microprocessor. It had four chips
in the set, the CPU (4004), and the 4001 through 4003; ROMs,
RAMs, on separate chips. Regardless of how the interference
comes out, it affects only a set of claims, not all claims in the
microcomputer patent. And there are many other claims in that
patent that address the microcomputer, so there has been an
awful lot of attention focused on these few single-chip claims. It's
an important issue, but it's not the whole ball game. So TI's
contention that the issue has ended is not true.
Most of my contentions, which are not single-chip claims, are
unchallenged. For those that are contested, the single-chip
claims, the contest is not over yet.
EBN: Among those claims, two would be the single-chip
microprocessor and the single-chip microcontroller. Is that true?
Hyatt: The claims don't really recite these names. They recite the
hardware that implement those functions: an IC ROM, an IC RAM
(or alterable memory), and an IC processor. So those functions
are common to microcomputers with ROM and RAM if they're on
a single chip, two microcontrollers on a single chip, and filter
processors, the DSPs. To hang a name on this single patent
limits it unnecessarily.
EBN: I've heard that the product made at Microcomputer Inc.
was, in fact, a computerized milling machine. Is that true?
Hyatt: May I give a very brief background? Microcomputer Inc.
was founded to develop applications for the microcomputer.
When you get a microcomputer on a chip, your costs go way, way
down, and we didn't want to be in the chip business. Since I was
a systems guy, I developed new applications, new ways of
implementing systems that would use a computer on a chip,
different from the usual applications where the computer was a
big, expensive monstrosity. The microcomputer was embedded
in the system and added intelligence to the system at no
additional cost. Consequently, even though the enabling
technology was the microcomputer, we applied it to many
different products.
One of these products was a machine tool control system;
another was an IC drafting system. We were working on a wide
variety of applications. And only one of those many different types
of machines that we controlled was a milling machine.
EBN: Twenty years later, the patent office approved your claim.
After that, was your first step informing those companies
manufacturing products based on your technology that they were
violating your claim?
Hyatt: I had been working with a large multinational corporation,
Phillips, and they offered to help me license the patents. The 516
patent was only one of a very large portfolio, so I could spend my
time on researching and developing my new technologies, which
are coming along fine. Phillips offered reasonable licenses on a
paid-up basis, and was able to attract various companies that
were interested in taking a license.
And although the licenses and the names of the licensees are
confidential, we do require the licensees to put the patent
numbers on their products. You can go to the electronics store
and see my patent numbers, including the 516 patent, marked on
the back of numerous products.
EBN: So were these licensed to consumer electronics
companies or semiconductor manufacturers?
Hyatt: Both. Many of the companies are combinations of both, as
they're vertically structured. For instance, Matsushita, a big
Japanese company, sells Panasonic products that have IC
capabilities through full-systems capabilities.
EBN: Did you receive any royalties from those licenses, and if
so, how much? Were those mitigated by the intervention of
Phillips?
Hyatt: Oh, yes. I received a very generous share of the royalties.
EBN: With companies like Intel and AMD making millions on the
microprocessor, do you feel you should be more fairly
represented? Or even deserve a greater share of their revenues?
Hyatt: I've got my own research lab, and I've been enjoying my
work. Companies can fight about credit 25 years after the fact,
with their [Intel's] 25th anniversary, and the like. It's important for
them for various reasons. I have the patent; I'll keep the patent for
the microcomputer. That's my vindication. But everyone in this
world is vulnerable to others taking credit for what they do- that's
just a way of life.
MICROPROCESSORS
SECTION CONTENTS
25th ANNIVERSARY
SPECIAL CONTENTS
c 1996 Electronic Buyers' News
{=================================}
Paul |
