Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMar2019

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 152975

Article: 152975
Subject: Re: Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
From: fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 06:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 5:03=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 12:21=A0am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 7:58=A0am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:> hamilton =
=A0<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> > > >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> > > >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decid=
ed
> > > >there was no prior art.
>
> > > That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. =A0There are huge num=
bers of
> > > patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty c=
lueless
> > > examiners.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
> > patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
> > That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
> > patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
> > it out in court using the patents as little more then official
> > documentation.
>
> > Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
> > it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
> > makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
> > cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
> > everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
> > US government.
>
> > Rick
>
> The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may
> not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO
> too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted
> patents is generally recognised.
> Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to
> read the EPO search report beforehand...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
the internet: *lying is a bad thing*

All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
the US patent's front page

EPO hasn't cited any other references

The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone

EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
"nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
internet including EPO examiner)

Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
your posts can only add to this...

EPO is one big ripoff

Article: 152976
Subject: Re: PCI Express development board
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 07:52:19 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 12:43=A0pm, "zsolt.garamvolgyi" <zsolt.garamvol...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 6, 1:10=A0pm, Michael S <already5cho...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 1:15=A0pm, "zsolt.garamvolgyi" <zsolt.garamvol...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > I'm looking for an FPGA-based PCI Express development board which is
> > > capable of transmitting data at about 1.4 GByte/sec to the host
> > > computer (PCIe Gen1 x8 or Gen2 x4/x8).
>
> > > Further considerations:
> > > 1. included IDE license
> > > 2. included PCIe IP core license, which is also valid for other
> > > designs based on the same FPGA
> > > 3. minimal HW complexity (i.e., the smaller the FPGA, the better)
> > > 4. price
>
> > > My current candidate is the Altera Arria II GX FPGA Development Kit
> > > (although I'm not sure if the IP core license which comes with it is
> > > not only for evaluation).http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/alter=
a/kit-aiigx-pcie.html
>
> > > I would appreciate some information about your development experience
> > > with this board or other boards which satisfy the above requirements.
> > > Thank you for your time!
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Zsolt
>
> > In our experience Altera's hard IP PCIe core present in StratixIV GX
> > and in ArriaII GX is broken rather badly.
> > That is, you can find certain hosts where it appears to work most of
> > the time, but that's exception rather than rule.
> > Soft IP core in these devices works relatively better, but still badly
> > violates power up timing specifications defined in the PCIe standard,
> > so we generally prefer to plug it into slots that support hot plug,
> > since such slots are typically more tolerant to this sort of timing
> > violations. Unfortunately for you, you want x8 slot. x8 slots with
> > support for hot plug are significantly rarer than x4/x1 slots.
>
> This is really interesting. Can you tell me, exactly which hosts (if
> any) did you manage to get the hard IP core work with correctly?
>

I recollect that we had better luck with hard IP on Altera's own
Stratix IV GX FPGA Development Board (EP4SGX230KF40 device) in x8 Gen2
slot of Intel S3420GP motherboard. Still not robust enough to ship it
to client, but it was handy during development (faster compilation
time than soft IP core and no need for license). However combination
of the same board with the same Altera device and the Hard IP core did
not work at all on Terrasic DE4.
The same Terrasic DE4 works pretty well with soft IP core.

As to hard IP on ArriaII-GX, I didn't try it myself. The colleges
reported zero success rate.


> > Overall, if you decided to go with Altera, the most robust combination
> > is old StatixII GX + soft PCIe core + Quartus 9.1 Sp1 or Sp2.
>
> I would prefer using an Altera device as I have more experience with
> their design tools.
> As the Stratix II GX board is obsolete, I think I could use the Arria
> II GX board with the soft IP core, too, with the drawbacks of
> additional license cost and FPGA resource usage. The Arria II GX +
> hard IP combination is quite compelling (at least on paper).
>

In our experience paper and silicon are quite different.
Now, soft IP PCIe cores obviously work both on StratixII-GX and on
ArriaII-GX. However on StratixII-GX they work better. If all you need
is 1 or 2 boards, is it so hard to find Stratix II GX dev boards?

> Do you have experience with other vendors' PCIe boards/IP cores?

No, I don't.

> Is there a more robust solution available?
>

For x4 Gen1 the Gennum GN4124 is probably the most robust solution,
but I am not aware of ready-to-buy development boards with GN4124 +
Altera FPGA. On the other hand, I didn't look for them.

> > BTW, even on x8 Gen1, hitting 1.4 GB/s =A0in the read direction will be
> > very very hard =A0(but it sounds like you don't need it). Hitting 1.4 G=
B/
> > s in =A0in write direction is significantly easier, but still non-
> > trivial, esp. if you want to work with default 256B packets size.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of these limitations, but
> 1. downstream data transfer is not a concern,
> 2. 1.4 GB/s is an absolute worst case data rate estimation, and most
> probably will be relaxed in the final specification. It's not
> impossible that even a PCIe x4 board will fit the requirements.
>
> Regards,
> Zsolt

Good for you.



Article: 152977
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
> >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
> >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I
> >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with
> >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is
> >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
> >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even
> >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
> >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
> >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
> >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
> >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>
> >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
> >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was
> >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
> >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
> >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>
> >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it
> >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>
> >Rick
>
> Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.
>
> Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
> publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
> processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
> marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds
> like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
> kill a good patent.
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation.  I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent.  I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application.  A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken.  I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find.  My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go.  But I guess
your mileage may vary.  :)

Rick

Article: 152978
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:34:54 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
> > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
> > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I
> > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with
> > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One =
is
> > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
> > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or ev=
en
> > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent =
by
> > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
> > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
> > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
> > >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>
> > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
> > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was
> > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
> > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
> > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>
> > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So i=
t
> > >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>
> > >Rick
>
> > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.
>
> > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
> > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
> > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
> > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds
> > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
> > kill a good patent.
>
> > Eric Jacobsen
> > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
>
> No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
> don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
> believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
> to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
>
> It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
> "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
> date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
> application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
> obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
> art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
> patent on that same invention.
>
> I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
> broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
> and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My car
> is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
> your mileage may vary. =A0:)
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention."

Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
expires in one year

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional


Article: 152979
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
> > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
> > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish=
 I
> > > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi=
th
> > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On=
e is
> > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic=
h
> > > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or =
even
> > > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten=
t by
> > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo=
d
> > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
> > > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
> > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>
> > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
> > > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa=
s
> > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
> > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
> > > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>
> > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So=
 it
> > > >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>
> > > >Rick
>
> > > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.
>
> > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
> > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
> > > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
> > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun=
ds
> > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
> > > kill a good patent.
>
> > > Eric Jacobsen
> > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
>
> > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
> > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
> > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
> > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
>
> > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
> > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
> > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
> > application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
> > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
> > art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
> > patent on that same invention.
>
> > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
> > broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
> > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca=
r
> > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
> > your mileage may vary. =A0:)
>
> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "A significant aspect of this is that you have no
> obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
> art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
> patent on that same invention."
>
> Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
> expires in one year
>
> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
> claims the benefit of a provisional

This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
with the speaker, Dr Hollaar.  Remember this included two
representatives from the USPTO.  Even if the provisional application
expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
USPTO.  I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

Rick

Article: 152980
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
From: eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:18:01 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
>> >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
>> >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I
>> >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with
>> >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is
>> >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
>> >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even
>> >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
>> >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
>> >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
>> >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
>> >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>>
>> >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
>> >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was
>> >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
>> >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
>> >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>>
>> >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it
>> >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>>
>> >Rick
>>
>> Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.
>>
>> Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
>> publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
>> processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
>> marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds
>> like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
>> kill a good patent.
>>
>> Eric Jacobsen
>> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
>
>No, this was a response to my question after the presentation.  I
>don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent.  I
>believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
>to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

>It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
>"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
>date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
>application.  A significant aspect of this is that you have no
>obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
>art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
>patent on that same invention.

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

>I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
>broken.  I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
>and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find.  My car
>is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go.  But I guess
>your mileage may vary.  :)

Always.  ;)


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

Article: 152981
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
From: eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen)
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 20:30:51 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
>> > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
>> > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish=
> I
>> > > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi=
>th
>> > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On=
>e is
>> > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic=
>h
>> > > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or =
>even
>> > > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten=
>t by
>> > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo=
>d
>> > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
>> > > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
>> > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>>
>> > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
>> > > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa=
>s
>> > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
>> > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
>> > > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>>
>> > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So=
> it
>> > > >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>>
>> > > >Rick
>>
>> > > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.
>>
>> > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
>> > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
>> > > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
>> > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun=
>ds
>> > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
>> > > kill a good patent.
>>
>> > > Eric Jacobsen
>> > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
>>
>> > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
>> > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
>> > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
>> > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
>>
>> > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
>> > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
>> > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
>> > application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
>> > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
>> > art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
>> > patent on that same invention.
>>
>> > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
>> > broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
>> > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca=
>r
>> > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
>> > your mileage may vary. =A0:)
>>
>> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> "A significant aspect of this is that you have no
>> obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
>> art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
>> patent on that same invention."
>>
>> Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
>> expires in one year
>>
>> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
>> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
>> claims the benefit of a provisional
>
>This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
>with the speaker, Dr Hollaar.  Remember this included two
>representatives from the USPTO.  Even if the provisional application
>expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
>USPTO.  I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
>presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
>fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
>presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.
>
>Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
>I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
>application so they know it's prior art.
>
>Rick

I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art".   

Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as
evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a
formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional.

Or something like that...



Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

Article: 152982
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:41:24 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Eric Jacobsen wrote:


> Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
> establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
> file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
> some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
> can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
> covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full 
patent application.

> The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
> doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
> draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
> provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard 
to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the 
subsequent patent application.

> Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
> more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
> system.

Provisional applications are pretty much pointless.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Article: 152983
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:03:54 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)

>> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
>> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
>> claims the benefit of a provisional

> This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
> with the speaker, Dr Hollaar.  Remember this included two
> representatives from the USPTO.  Even if the provisional application
> expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
> USPTO.  I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
> presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
> fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
> presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

> Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
> I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
> application so they know it's prior art.

My interpretation from the above statements (and not from any other)
is that it could be used to claim prior art by the original filer, or,
I suppose, by an agent of the filer.  Even if the USPTO doesn't
publish it, the original filer could, and that should be usable
to claim prior art if someone else tried to patent it.

As usual, IANAL and don't even pretend to be one on TV.

-- glen


Article: 152984
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 3:30=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 7, 2:34=3DA0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 7, 2:08=3DA0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 6, 12:28=3DA0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote=
:
>
> >> > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com=
>
> >> > > wrote:
>
> >> > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =3DA0We had to e=
xpert
> >> > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =3DA0T=
hey
> >> > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =3DA0I only=
 wish=3D
> > I
> >> > > >had taken better notes. =3DA0I did get the chance to speak direct=
ly wi=3D
> >th
> >> > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =
=3DA0On=3D
> >e is
> >> > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication w=
hic=3D
> >h
> >> > > >would represent prior art. =3DA0This is attached at an applicatio=
n or =3D
> >even
> >> > > >a granted patent. =3DA0If the patent holder tries to enforce the =
paten=3D
> >t by
> >> > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in =
goo=3D
> >d
> >> > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with =
the
> >> > > >court. =3DA0There were other things that can be done and they don=
't
> >> > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>
> >> > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well=
 as
> >> > > >the USPTO representatives. =3DA0Probably the most useful thing th=
at wa=3D
> >s
> >> > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the l=
aw.
> >> > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will m=
ost
> >> > > >profit. =3DA0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>
> >> > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =
=3DA0So=3D
> > it
> >> > > >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>
> >> > > >Rick
>
> >> > > Thanks for the update. =3DA0 I wish I could have been there.
>
> >> > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
> >> > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
> >> > > processed? =3DA0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
> >> > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =3DA=
0Soun=3D
> >ds
> >> > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying t=
o
> >> > > kill a good patent.
>
> >> > > Eric Jacobsen
> >> > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
>
> >> > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =3DA0=
I
> >> > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =3DA0=
I
> >> > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't nee=
d
> >> > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
>
> >> > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
> >> > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
> >> > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
> >> > application. =3DA0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
> >> > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
> >> > art" registered with the USPTO. =3DA0No one can subsequently apply f=
or a
> >> > patent on that same invention.
>
> >> > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is complete=
ly
> >> > broken. =3DA0I think the problem is that people don't know much abou=
t it
> >> > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =3DA0=
My ca=3D
> >r
> >> > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =3DA0But I g=
uess
> >> > your mileage may vary. =3DA0:)
>
> >> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> "A significant aspect of this is that you have no
> >> obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
> >> art" registered with the USPTO. =3DA0No one can subsequently apply for=
 a
> >> patent on that same invention."
>
> >> Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
> >> expires in one year
>
> >> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
> >> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
> >> claims the benefit of a provisional
>
> >This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
> >with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. =A0Remember this included two
> >representatives from the USPTO. =A0Even if the provisional application
> >expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
> >USPTO. =A0I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
> >presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
> >fee of only $125. =A0Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
> >presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.
>
> >Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
> >I'm not certain whether it is published or not. =A0But the USPTO has the
> >application so they know it's prior art.
>
> >Rick
>
> I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art".
>
> Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as
> evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a
> formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional.
>
> Or something like that...
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

Nope, he said the purpose of the provisional app is to establish a
priority date, but it also establishes the date of prior art.  He was
very clear about this point.  He said that once you file a provisional
patent application that establishes prior art and even if you never
follow up with the patent application the prior art forever locks out
anyone from filing on this invention.  He actually introduced the
subject with a bullet that said how to establish prior art for only
$125.  No need to get something published in a journal or offer a
product for sale.  Just file with the USPTO.

Rick

Article: 152985
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:07:49 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 3:18=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 6, 12:28=3DA0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =3DA0We had to exper=
t
> >> >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =3DA0They
> >> >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =3DA0I only wis=
h I
> >> >had taken better notes. =3DA0I did get the chance to speak directly w=
ith
> >> >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =3DA0O=
ne is
> >> >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
> >> >would represent prior art. =3DA0This is attached at an application or=
 even
> >> >a granted patent. =3DA0If the patent holder tries to enforce the pate=
nt by
> >> >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
> >> >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
> >> >court. =3DA0There were other things that can be done and they don't
> >> >require you to be a lawyer or use one.
>
> >> >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
> >> >the USPTO representatives. =3DA0Probably the most useful thing that w=
as
> >> >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
> >> >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
> >> >profit. =3DA0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.
>
> >> >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =3DA0S=
o it
> >> >is just like an election, file early and file often!
>
> >> >Rick
>
> >> Thanks for the update. =3DA0 I wish I could have been there.
>
> >> Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
> >> publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
> >> processed? =3DA0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
> >> marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =3DA0Sou=
nds
> >> like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
> >> kill a good patent.
>
> >> Eric Jacobsen
> >> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com
>
> >No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
> >don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
> >believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
> >to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
> >It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
> >"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
> >date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
> >application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
> >obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
> >art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
> >patent on that same invention.
>
> Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. =A0 They're a means to
> establish the "priority date" for an invention, =A0in other words the
> file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. =A0 There are
> some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
> can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
> covered by material in the provisional application.
>
> The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
> doesn't have a specific format. =A0e.g., it is not unusual to file a
> draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
> provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.
>
> Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
> more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
> system.

You seem to understand the provisional application well.  Yes,
provisional applications are not new.  But they can be used to your
benefit.

I liked how Dr. Hollaar started his presentation by introducing the
new law and how many are not happy with it.  He then said that those
who learn the new law and how best to use it are the ones who will
benefit the most.  Just like the rest of patent law.


> >I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
> >broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
> >and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My car
> >is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
> >your mileage may vary. =A0:)
>
> Always. =A0;)
>
> Eric Jacobsen
> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com


Article: 152986
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 21:08:43 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)
> I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
> presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
> fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
> presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

> Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
> I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
> application so they know it's prior art.

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago, 
though never got into researching it more.  That is, the ability
to search encrypted text.  If one could have a file if encrypted, 
but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art
without being able to actually read it.  One might be able to find
that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
cause it to be prior art.

I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some
might even be patentable.

-- glen

Article: 152987
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 13:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 3:41=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> > Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. =A0 They're a means t=
o
> > establish the "priority date" for an invention, =A0in other words the
> > file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. =A0 There are
> > some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
> > can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
> > covered by material in the provisional application.
>
> That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
> patent application.

I don't recall the details of the full presentation.  This was
discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
the same as the full application.  In fact, I want to say the
provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.


> > The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
> > doesn't have a specific format. =A0e.g., it is not unusual to file a
> > draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
> > provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.
>
> If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
> to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
> subsequent patent application.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be
expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy.


> > Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
> > more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
> > system.
>
> Provisional applications are pretty much pointless.
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

Yes, and how long have you been practicing patent law?

Rick

Article: 152988
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


rickman wrote:

> On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> 
>>Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>
>>>Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
>>>establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
>>>file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
>>>some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
>>>can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
>>>covered by material in the provisional application.
>>
>>That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
>>patent application.
> 
> I don't recall the details of the full presentation. 

Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments.

> This was
> discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
> the same as the full application.  In fact, I want to say the
> provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or 
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly 
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why 
provisional applications at all?

>>>The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
>>>doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
>>>draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
>>>provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.
>>
>>If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
>>to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
>>subsequent patent application.
>  
> I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be
> expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy.

Read the laws.

USPTO doesn't give any consideration to provisional apps. It is your 
burden to prove the priority date or claim prior art using a provisional 
application as the argument. Which means that the provisional app must 
contain a clear and legally unambiguous definition of the invention; 
i.e. essentially the same as a patent app.



Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Article: 152989
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
From: eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 01:33:52 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>
>rickman wrote:
>
>> On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>>>
>>>>Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
>>>>establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
>>>>file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
>>>>some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
>>>>can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
>>>>covered by material in the provisional application.
>>>
>>>That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
>>>patent application.
>> 
>> I don't recall the details of the full presentation. 
>
>Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments.
>
>> This was
>> discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
>> the same as the full application.  In fact, I want to say the
>> provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.
>
>Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or 
>anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly 
>prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
>If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why 
>provisional applications at all?

You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.  


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

Article: 152990
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE
From: fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:37:40 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 7, 4:08=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
> > presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
> > fee of only $125. =A0Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
> > presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.
> > Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
> > I'm not certain whether it is published or not. =A0But the USPTO has th=
e
> > application so they know it's prior art.
>
> This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago,
> though never got into researching it more. =A0That is, the ability
> to search encrypted text. =A0If one could have a file if encrypted,
> but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
> could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art
> without being able to actually read it. =A0One might be able to find
> that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
> cause it to be prior art.
>
> I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some
> might even be patentable.
>
> -- glen

:-) :-) :-)........................

Good joke, I hope you are joking, right ?

Trained patent examiners with education in the field and years of
experience quite often (actually all the time) get confused by the
wording in purported "prior art" documents and produce some
unbelievably stupid office actions
The question which comes to mind when reading those office actions is
"did examiner read this particular patent application or some other
random application ?"
Software to find relevant "prior art" in encrypted files ?
How about flying to Andromeda ?

Unpublished documents can never ever be used as "prior art". Period.

(This would destroy the whole premise on which patent system is based)

Article: 152991
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:10:29 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Eric Jacobsen wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
> <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>>Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or 
>>anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly 
>>prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
>>If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why 
>>provisional applications at all?
> 
> 
> You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.  
> 

Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning 
on using a provisional application?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com



Article: 152992
Subject: Re: Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE Consultants Network)
From: eric.jacobsen@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen)
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:18:49 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:10:29 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>
>Eric Jacobsen wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
>> <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or 
>>>anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly 
>>>prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
>>>If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why 
>>>provisional applications at all?
>> 
>> 
>> You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.  
>> 
>
>Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning 
>on using a provisional application?

I'm not planning on it, but I'd certainly do it if I needed to.  Some
of the patents I've had granted were preceded by a provisional
application.  It's pretty common practice and a very useful mechanism
when properly used.




Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

Article: 152993
Subject: Re: Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
From: Regis <quelavor@netscape.net>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 07:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

> And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
> the internet: *lying is a bad thing*
>
> All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
> the US patent's front page
>
> EPO hasn't cited any other references
>
> The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone
>
> EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
> particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
> made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
> "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
> himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
> in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
> office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
> internet including EPO examiner)
>
> Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
> deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
> your posts can only add to this...
>
> EPO is one big ripoff

OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006,
has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO
examiner in 2008 !
Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor
by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october
1989.

This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but
was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ?
Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear
methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no.
1, January 1999.

:p





Article: 152994
Subject: Re: Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
From: fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2011 09:18:10 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 8, 10:37=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
> > the internet: *lying is a bad thing*
>
> > All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
> > the US patent's front page
>
> > EPO hasn't cited any other references
>
> > The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone
>
> > EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
> > particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
> > made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
> > "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
> > himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
> > in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
> > office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
> > internet including EPO examiner)
>
> > Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
> > deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
> > your posts can only add to this...
>
> > EPO is one big ripoff
>
> OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006,
> has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO
> examiner in 2008 !
> Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor
> by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october
> 1989.
>
> This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but
> was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ?
> Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear
> methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no.
> 1, January 1999.
>
> :p- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You don't have Internet at EPO ?

All this info was publicly available from www.uspto.gov  to anyone on
the internet including EPO examiners

First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good
faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002.

Second reference (Banbrook) was cited in another IDS filed after EPO
search report came in 2005

Both references were considered by US examiner and made of record
(they are listed on the officially granted patent under "Other
references")

Second reference is only marginally relevant - there is nothing to
discuss about it other than the general field of research and it was
mentioned only in the passing by EPO examiner.

EPO examiner relied on the first reference (Lathrop et al :
"Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic
orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october 1989) to state
lack of novelty.
In doing so, EPO examiner made a 100% erroneous statement, confusing
imaginary "periodic orbits" characterizing the behaviour of aperiodic
chaotic strange attractor described in the reference with "periodic
signals"
To be honest, US examiner initially made the same error but was
corrected after extensive discussions and a personal interview.
The contents of those discussions are publicly available to anyone on
the internet as part of US patent prosecution history as early as
2006.

Here is the link to Lathrop et al. reference:

http://complex.umd.edu/papers/attractororbits1989.pdf

You can judge for yourself how it affects the novelty of pitch
(fundamental frequency) determination methods disclosed in US Patent
7,124,075 (if you are qualified to read and understand Lathrop et al.
paper, which is almost certainly not the case)

Article: 152995
Subject: Re: Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
From: Regis <quelavor@netscape.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 06:51:24 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good
faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002."

Why did you do that?

Have also a look at
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=76828832&gid=78206&commentID=57537650&trk=view_disc&ut=2EFiDSHZrpW4Y1

Article: 152996
Subject: Re: Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
From: fatalist <simfidude@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:16:08 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Nov 9, 9:51=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote:
> "First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good
> faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002."
>
> Why did you do that?
>
> Have also a look athttp://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAn=
swers=3D&discussi...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Article: 152997
Subject: ASIC design job vs FPGA design job
From: googler <pinaki_m77@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 20:54:19 -0800 (PST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi folks,

I am an ASIC design engineer with over 6 years experience. My
experience in ASIC design spans across microarchitecture, RTL coding,
synthesis, timing closure and verification. Is it advisable for me if
I change to a FPGA design job? I mean, what are the pros and cons? I
do not have much experience in FPGA other than school projects. How
much learning is involved? Will it be difficult to switch back to ASIC
design position in the future if I move to a FPGA job? Do FPGA design
involve less work and stress than ASIC? Please provide your opinion,
experience or any other comment.

Thanks!

Article: 152998
Subject: Re: ASIC design job vs FPGA design job
From: Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:54:49 -0600
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:54:19 -0800, googler wrote:

> Hi folks,
> 
> I am an ASIC design engineer with over 6 years experience. My experience
> in ASIC design spans across microarchitecture, RTL coding, synthesis,
> timing closure and verification. Is it advisable for me if I change to a
> FPGA design job? I mean, what are the pros and cons? I do not have much
> experience in FPGA other than school projects. How much learning is
> involved? Will it be difficult to switch back to ASIC design position in
> the future if I move to a FPGA job? Do FPGA design involve less work and
> stress than ASIC? Please provide your opinion, experience or any other
> comment.

I knew a guy who had done really good FPGA designs for years, and for 
years had yearned to do ASIC design with the "big boys".  He lasted a 
year or two -- not because he wasn't up to the job, but because he hadn't 
realized the difference in the design cycle between ASIC and FPGA, and he 
vastly preferred FPGA design.

Because with FPGA design, you do your system design and have a design 
review, then you do your coding and have a design review, and then you 
pour it all into the PC board that's been underway at the same time that 
you were doing your FPGA design.  You bring it all up with the test 
features in the software whose design has _also_ been underway while you 
were working, and you test the heck out of it.

At this point, you're far from done: the board will be getting green 
wires, the software will be getting revised (or, if everyone is smart, 
only the critical portions of the software will have been completed), and 
your logic design will probably need revision (or be incomplete).

So it's not uncommon to spend a month or two tweaking and revising your 
"finished" design after it's finished.

Tom's experience with ASIC design, on the other hand, was that you get 
the system design done, then you go write a bunch of behavioral code to 
completely embody the system design, and a testbench to completely test 
it.  You churn on that for weeks or months while your colleagues make up 
new tests for corner cases.  

Then, once you've verified the snot out of the system design, you start 
replacing parts of your behavioral system piece-by-piece with the RTL-
level code for your ASIC, testing all the way.

So, (in Tom's words), you spend 90% of your time flogging the 
verification.

This all makes sense:  the cycle time between moving a comma in a Verilog 
file and testing the effect in an FPGA might only take between half an 
hour and several hours.  The cycle time to do the same thing with an ASIC 
is weeks, and $$$, and trash bins full of parts.  So doing the 
verification "live" makes good economic sense with FPGAs, and doing it in 
simulation makes equally good economic sense with ASICs.

So:  if the design cycle that I'm quoting for ASICs sounds accurate to 
you (I'm just forwarding a long-ago conversation), and the design cycle 
for FPGA work makes you think "ewww!", then FPGA work isn't for you.  If, 
on the other hand, you get no joy from spending 90% of your time 
verifying before you actually get to see your work working -- maybe 
you'll like FPGA work.

Tom did note barriers to transitioning to ASIC work (in part because he 
has an EET degree, not a "real" EE degree), and may not have found the 
transition back to FPGA work as easy as he did if he did not have a large 
circle of former coworkers who -- to a man -- were impressed by his work 
and willing to tell their bosses.  (Tom's one of those guys that if he's 
applying for work you tell your boss "just hire him, he'll make it work").

So, that's what I know.

-- 
www.wescottdesign.com

Article: 152999
Subject: Re: ASIC design job vs FPGA design job
From: glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:58:32 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
googler <pinaki_m77@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I am an ASIC design engineer with over 6 years experience. My
> experience in ASIC design spans across microarchitecture, RTL coding,
> synthesis, timing closure and verification. Is it advisable for me if
> I change to a FPGA design job? 

Do you mean a job designing using FPGAs, or designing FPGAs?

The latter is pretty much a specialized version of ASIC design,
though it is probably good to know a lot about designing using
FPGAs first.

Otherwise, as I understand it with mask costs going up, more and
more that previously would have been ASIC are going to FPGA.

-- glen



Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMar2019

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search