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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (14199)	8/27/1998 5:16:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

Dave - The question would be, how obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art would it have been to use that system in a different standard. Agreed. As someone with subordinary skill in the details of the field (I am not a CDMA designer/researcher) it is dead obvious that any implementation of power control that works in IS-95 is just as applicable to another form of CDMA cell-system/mobile CDMA. If it's obvious to me (and I am not working from ignorance about the technology - I do some systems engineering work in this area), then for someone in the details of the field ... . Furthermore, if the scope of the claims mentions IS-95 as a limitation, then the Q's protection would only be in IS-95 systems. I have not looked at Qualcomm's patents, but I trust Gregg and his attorneys not to have overlooked so obvious a blunder (and sheer stupidity it would be to have done such a thing). As I said in an earlier post, the detailed language/phraseology used in a patent application can be very very important, but this is something that I would trust Gregg's lawyers and the various licensees to be able to vet since it does not required detailed knowledge of the field. Clark