Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
L2V, Good to hear from you. Hope you're doing well in your current pursuits. I miss your inputs and thoughts.
JL
Applied Nanotech Licenses Solar Ink Technology to Sichuan Anxian Yinhe Construction and Chemical Group ("YHCC")
globenewswire
tweet
Press Release Source: Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. On Tuesday July 19, 2011, 9:00 am
AUSTIN, Texas, July 19, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:APNT - News) is pleased to announce that it has signed a license agreement for its solar ink and paste technology with YHCC. This is the first license agreement to arise out of the strategic relationship with YHCC previously announced in February 2011.
Under the terms of the license, Applied Nanotech will receive an upfront payment of $2.0 million and an ongoing royalty of 3% on sales of solar inks and pastes by YHCC. The first $1.5 million of the upfront payment is payable no later than August, 2011. The remaining $500,000 is payable in April, 2012, assuming certain technical specifications have been met. The license agreement grants YHCC an exclusive license for Applied Nanotech's solar ink and paste technology in Asia, excluding Korea and Japan.
YHCC has begun construction on a manufacturing facility to produce solar inks in its technical park in China. Applied Nanotech's aluminum pastes are the first products that YHCC will begin producing and is expected to be manufacturing and selling these pastes in 2012.
This license agreement gives Applied Nanotech exposure to the fast growing solar manufacturing market in Asia. The photovoltaic solar industry generated $82 billion in global revenues in 2010, with Asia dominating the solar manufacturing marketplace and China alone manufacturing nearly 60% of the worldwide solar cells in 2010.
Applied Nanotech's solar inks will be the first products introduced in the strategic partnership with YHCC. The parties are continuing discussions related to other collaboration opportunities.
"YHCC has shown a tremendous amount of interest in our solar inks since we began developing our relationship. We are pleased that YHCC has recognized the disruptive nature of our technology and have committed to make the commercialization of our solar inks the highest priority," commented Dr. Zvi Yaniv, CEO of Applied Nanotech, Inc.
"We are pleased to have completed the first license agreement with YHCC, which marks our third licensee that will have products in the market and generating royalties in 2012," said Doug Baker, CEO of Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc.
Generic, I don't believe anything was published on that.
Nothing today
Postyle - In my own, amateurish way, I've tried to HiLite the slamdunks delivered by the court, or the mis-steps of the attornies. Pls correct me if I've mis-interpreted, or otherwise screwed up, any of you reading this.
Unofficial transcript of the Oral Arguments in the case of InterDigital Communications v. ITC (case #2010-1093) at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
MR. DUNNER (00:07): Good afternoon, and may it please the Court. This appeal focuses on two claim con-struction issues, but they are very unusual claim construction issues for three reasons.
First of all, the Administrative Law Judge initially agreed with InterDigital that the ordinary plain meaning of both phrases should be used. And then he went ahead and added additional limitations to those claims, which I submit were unwarranted additional limitations.
Second, those additional limitations not only excluded the preferred embodiment in InterDigital's patents, but excluded all embodiments.
And, third, the ALJ's constructions were, in my opinion, so clearly unwarranted that even the Commission in its Red Brief has run away from at least one of those constructions.
Let me be more specific. Let me talk about the first limitation, the code signal limitation. The Administrative Law Judge initially agreed with InterDigital--
THE COURT (01:11): Before you get into your argument, Mr. Dunner.
Just to get the lay of the land here, I wonder if you could tell me what your construction, your proposed construc-tion of both the term "code" and the term "spreading code" is, so that I see what the baseline --
MR. DUNNER (01:31): Our construction is that code is a sequence of chips, and our construction of spreading code is at least: one, a code that can increase bandwidth, but doesn't have to increase bandwidth. That's our defini-tion.
THE COURT (01:49): And when you say "a sequence of chips," you mean chips being defined as bits at a chip rate?
MR. DUNNER (01:57): Exactly.
THE COURT (01:57): Okay.
MR. DUNNER (01:58): Exactly. Now, the Administrative Law Judge initially construed the terms "code" and "signal" to be a sequence of chips, and consistent with what InterDigital had asked him to do. But then he added a limitation; he said, no, a code is not just a code, it's a spreading code, and a signal is a spreading code that's trans-mitted.
Now, it is true that the preferred embodiment in the power ramp-up patents include spreading codes, and it is also true that the word "spreading code" is used a number of times in those patents. But it is also true that there's a clear rational reason for not restricting the independent claims to spreading codes.
THE COURT (02:45): But does it actually, in the specifications, say the code is not limited to spreading code? That's what I was looking for.
MR. DUNNER (02:54): There are two things I would refer Your Honor to. One is that the '010 patent is incorpo-rated by reference in the power ramp-up patents. Nobody disputes that. And the '010 patent has an express state-ment on Page 504 of the Appendix, and it says, "The spreading code" -- it says in Column 17 on Page 504, Lines 46 and 7, "The spreading code is a sequence of symbols called chips or chip files."
Secondly, if you look at the spec itself, the '966 patent by way of example, if you look at Column 3, Lines 23 and 4 and 5, "The short code is a sequence for detection by the base station," so on and so forth, which is a shorter period--
THE COURT (03:55): Are you saying as long as it's the short code, that that takes care of the definition, the broader definition of code, when they use the short code?
MR. DUNNER (04:06): We say the short code can be defined as a sequence of chips.
Now, it is true that the examples use spreading codes, but the reason for having a broad claim. We have broad claims which don't say spreading codes. We have 13 dependent claims in the collection of power ramp-up patents, which further define code or signal as a spreading code. That's the only additional difference, and the normal doctrine of claim differentiation says that if the only difference is some more specific term that creates a strong pre-sumption that the two terms should be construed differently. The problem is that the codes, the short codes, are not used to spread. Nobody disputes that. Both Nokia agrees with that, and the Commission agrees with that.
During the power ramp-up procedure, the short codes are merely used to establish communication with the base station. A spreading function is not involved. And the mischief of construing code or signal as a spreading code is that what can happen is what happened in this case. The Administrative Law Judge not only construed it as a spreading code, but he then went further, and he said a spreading code is a spreading code used or intended to be used to increase bandwidth, which doesn't clearly does not happen in this case. So I submit that there is a good reason the doctrine of claim differentiation not only applies presumptively, but should be applied in this case to avoid that very mischief.
But I would further note that even if the -- if, just if the Court goes further and says, well, what if we limit it to spreading codes, our position is that the bottom line, the bottom line of infringement, would not change even if it's limited to spreading codes.
But spreading codes; had the ALJ defined spreading codes the way I answered Judge Bryson, and that is a spread-ing code is a code that can be used to increase bandwidth but doesn't have to be used to increase bandwidth, then there would be no problem. But the Administrative Law Judge went further, and he said it must be used or intend-ed to be used to increase bandwidth, and that creates a problem, and we submit it is wrong for a number of reasons.
First of all, none of the claims mention increasing bandwidth.
Secondly, as I mentioned, the short codes and the codes used in the power ramp-up procedure do not increase bandwidth. On the contrary, they're disclosed as being used to establish communication, they perform timing func-tions, they perform discrimination functions between handsets, but they do not increase bandwidth.
The end result of this is the Administrative Law Judge construction excludes all the embodiments in this patent. And there are many, many cases from this court saying that ordinarily that's not a good way to proceed, to come up with a construction that excludes all of the disclosed embodiments.
Now, the fact is that there is a ton of evidence, intrinsic and extrinsic, supporting the notion that the codes that are used in the specification and in the accused devices are, in fact, spreading codes.
Let me talk about the accused devices. The Administrative Law Judge, or the Commission in its brief on Red 37, said that a spreading code has certain characteristics; three characteristics: operates at the chip rate, has a spreading factor, and is prepared from a spreading code generator.
The briefs we filed make absolutely clear that that is applicable to the PRACH preamble. The CDMA standard, Nokia technical specification, a number of patents - including a Nokia patent - characterized the scrambling code in the PRACH preamble as a spreading code. For all those reasons --
THE COURT (08:45): Although the scrambling code, I take it, does not, itself, increase bandwidth.
MR. DUNNER (08:51): It is not used to increase bandwidth, but it can. It could if you wanted to use it to in-crease bandwidth, because it's a sequence of chips, and, as long as you -- as long as you want it to be modulated by a data stream transmitted at a lower rate than the spreading code, you could treat it. It's the -- the Commission has come up with its own phrase. It says --
THE COURT (09:21): Intended.
MR. DUNNER (09:22): It says the type of code that can be --
THE COURT (09:25): Intended to be used.
MR. DUNNER (09:27): The type that is intended to be used.
Now, that is as close to what we say as you can get. It clearly is a move away from what the Administrative Law Judge says.
The scrambling code could fit into that category, and, in fact, it's described in the patents, Nokia's own patent, in the CDMA standard, and in other documents that we have submitted as being a spreading code.
And the signature part of the PRACH preamble is also described as a spreading code even though in the power ramp-up procedure, they do not spread; just as our short codes do not spread, but they are the type, series of -- of ones and zeros in a stream that are chips that can be used to spread as long as you use it in conjunction with the da-ta stream moving at a slower rate.
So the bottom line is we submit that whether you – we submit sequence of chips is the correct answer. We further submit that even if it's a spreading code, we should prevail on the issue of whether code or signal covers the PRACH preamble and covers the Nokia devices. I would like to move briefly into the increased power level part.
The plain meaning was found by the Administrative Law Judge as a power level of a transmission is higher than that of a previous transmission. Now that definition, that construction, says nothing about increase during trans-mission. And interestingly -- and even more than interestingly, the Administrative Law Judge says that the literal meaning of the claim does not restrict it to during the transmission. He said it was generic, generic to stepwise, which is what the Nokia device does, or increase during transmission. But then he nevertheless went ahead, and he restricted it to increase during transmission, excluding stepwise.
Now, had the Administrative Law Judge stuck to his original construction, there clearly would be infringement. We point out on pages -- in Blue 56 and 57, there is a chart of how the Nokia device operates, and it clearly would fit within this stepwise category.
But the reason for his embellishing the claim, for furthering the claim, was based on a fundamental misunderstand-ing of the patent. The judge -- and it's picked up in the briefs of the Commission and Nokia. The judge says, "The whole reason for this invention is to prevent overshoot, power overshoot, and what prevents power overshoot is the increase during transmission." That is absolutely, clearly in error.
THE COURT (12:32): And you said what prevents overshoot is the shortness of the code.
MR. DUNNER (12:36): Yes, that's exactly right, and it says that in so many words in the summary of the inven-tion in Column 3.
THE COURT (12:42): Now, what I understood the Administrative Law Judge to be relying on in part, of course, is the fact that the references in the specification were to continuous increases in power in the sense of not the dis-continuous increases that are suggested by the stepwise, but I take it that your argument there is that whatever may have been the suggestion as to at least one type of increase in the specification, the claim language clearly encom-passes both?
MR. DUNNER (13:15): Both.
THE COURT (13:15): Yea.
MR. DUNNER (13:16): Our position is the claim language encompasses both. The Judge's reason for restricting it was plainly in error, because the specs says it is the use of short codes that limits power overshoot.
Thirdly, it is my -- it is my personal belief that the word "continuous" doesn't necessarily restrict it to one or the other, to during the transmission or stepwise; although I acknowledge there is testimony to the contrary, so our case doesn't turn on that.
I think I have run into my --
THE COURT (13:53): We'll save your rebuttal time. Are there any more questions of Mr. Dunner?
MR. DUNNER (13:57): Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT (13:58): Thank you, Mr. Dunner.
Ms. Valentine.
MS. VALENTINE (14:02): Thank you, Your Honor.
May it please the Court, I think I would like to start where this all started, with the code limitation.
Mr. Dunner said something I think that was important to get across, that -- he said that the code may be used but need not be used to increase the -- or excuse me. A spreading code may be used, but need not be used to increase the bandwidth of another signal; and that's exactly what the ALJ found when he said that it is a code that is used or intended to be used to increase the bandwidth of another signal. Not that it must be used.
THE COURT (14:43): What does "intended to be used" in the context of a signal mean in our code? Codes are inanimate objects; they generally don't have a tense.
MS. VALENTINE (14:52): Yes, Your Honor.
I think the -- the point is that -- and that's why we tried to elaborate a little bit in our brief. That it is the type of code that is -- that may be used to increase the bandwidth of another signal even if it is not used to do so, and the specification is clear on this. In the access procedure described in the specification, there is no spreading occurring at all during this part of the communication procedure.
THE COURT (15:19): But that's their point, is it not? I mean isn't this really the core of where they say that the ALJ may have strayed from what's in the specification?
MS. VALENTINE (15:31): Right, Your Honor. The difference is a question of function over structure, if you will. What is the structure of the code, which is a spreading code, and what is the code doing at that time? And there is no dispute that there is no actual spreading occurring during this access procedure.
Remember, this isn't the full communication procedure. This is simply when a subscriber unit, a handset, wants to contact the base station and say someone wants to make a call, and it does an access procedure.
During this particular point of this entire call procedure, spreading codes are used, as Mr. Dunner said, for timing, for signaling, and also very important to identify the handset. The -- the specification is clear, particularly at 8409 -- excuse me -- 840 -- 8408 in the entire first paragraph under Column 2 where it's describing the benefits of using a spreading code, that these are unique codes used to identify the subscriber unit.
So the -- the upshot is that by using these spreading codes during this point, the base station will already know which subscriber unit is involved in the communication. No later codes need to be -- no later type of code, if there were any later type of codes - which we don't think there are using the CDMA systems - need to be used.
So this spreading code is used here and used later, but in this specific instance, the specification is clear that every single type of code that is described as being used is a spreading code. There are no other types of codes that are described as being used in the specification, in the patents themselves, or in the '010, which is incorporated by ref-erence.
THE COURT (17:19): What do you make about the claim differentiation argument with specific reference to Claim 5 referring to the narrowing, presumably of Claim 1, to a case in which the same code is a spreading code.
MS. VALENTINE (17:33): Yes, Your Honor. And as the ALJ confronted this issue squarely, and he found that there is a presumption of claim differentiation. However, the specification overcomes that presumption by its clear definition really of what a code is. It says everywhere a code is a spreading code. It never says anything else.
THE COURT (17:50): So you think that Claim 5 is simply duplicative of Claim 1?
MS. VALENTINE (17:54): That's what the ALJ found, Your Honor.
THE COURT (17:55): Right. That's what the ALJ found. Is that your position?
MS. VALENTINE (17:57): Yes, Your Honor. It's redundant, which, you know, if you've ever drafted patents, it happens sometimes.
But the specification is very straightforward. There is no question. And the ALJ's finding that spreading codes is an essential part of CDMA is really the linchpin here in that CDMA -- again, CDMA -- or excuse me. Spreading codes are what identify the -- they identify the specific subscriber unit being used or that is trying to make a com-munication. By spreading the data signals later on in the communication process, they enable multiple subscriber units to act at the same time over the same frequency.
THE COURT (18:43): But how do you react that the short code doesn't spread and that's not its role?
MS. VALENTINE (18:48): Correct, Your Honor. And that's exactly the point, is that the function here of the short code is not to spread. Later on in the communication process, the same code, which is -- again, the short code is only part -- is described as being a -- it's described as being the shorter or the more compact part -- a portion of a larger spreading code.
THE COURT (19:12): What is it that makes the short code a spreading code in your view? What structurally makes it a spreading code; the fact that it is operating at a chip rate higher than the baseline rate or what?
MS. VALENTINE (19:29): That is one reason, Your Honor, but --
THE COURT (19:31): What else would be structurally necessary? If I were to look at a particular code, how would I identify this: well this is a spreading code?
MS. VALENTINE (19:38): Okay, Your Honor. So again, yes. One reason is it's operating at a higher rate so it will then – but more importantly, the '010 patent is actually much more explicit on this point as far as what a spreading code does.
A spreading code is a specific type of code that not only at a higher rate, but it also would be considered to be – let me find the exact language. Let's see. Where is this? Oh, yes. On Page 8476 of the record of Column 2 -- Lines 14 through 15, it says, "These systems employ a family of orthogonal or quasi-orthogonal spreading codes." And that's important.
THE COURT (20:22): Well, let's define the spreading code in terms of spreading codes. What -- besides the higher bandwidth, what is the structural feature of the spreading code that I should look for in order to make the determination of whether it's a spreading code?
MS. VALENTINE (20:37): Right. And this is exactly the point, is this -- what -- what features does a spreading code have to have to be a spreading code?
THE COURT (20:44): Right.
MS. VALENTINE (20:44): Right. And so one is that it is at a higher bandwidth.
THE COURT (20:47): We got that one.
MS. VALENTINE (20:48): That it is a quasi-orthogonal -- orthogonal, quasi-orthogonal code such that it -- and Nokia's brief actually explains this very clearly; I believe at Pages 11 through 15 of its brief, where it's explaining how data is spread and then recovered, and that's exactly -- this type of code is what's used to perform it.
So unless the code has that orthogonality to it, it is not going to be able to be -- be, for the data to be recovered lat-er. So it can't just be any type of code that is at a higher bandwidth, it has to be a specific type of code. And that is what the ALJ recognized in that these are not just any type of code; these are specific types of codes used exclu-sively really in CDMA systems that are spreading codes.
THE COURT (21:32): A short code is not orthogonal, is it? It's too short to be orthogonal, isn't it?
MS. VALENTINE (21:38): Well, you're -- the short code -- and this is at 8409 of the '966 patent at Lines -- again at 23 through 25 where it says, "The short code is a sequence for detection by the base station, which has a much shorter period than a conventional spreading code."
So again, these are spreading codes. It's merely a portion of a larger spreading code, but it's still a spreading code. If you have a spreading code that fulfills all the requirements and you take a piece of it, that doesn't lose any of its features, it's just a piece of it that's being used for a specific purpose here for this access procedure.
I see my time has run but I would --
THE COURT (22:18): Yes, you are sharing your time with the intervener? Is that it?
MS. VALENTINE (22:20): Yes.
THE COURT (22:22): Okay.
MS. VALENTINE (22:22): Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT (22:23): Any more questions?
MS. VALENTINE (22:23): Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT (22:23): Okay.
MR. FLINN (22:29): May it please the Court, my name is Patrick Flinn. I'm counsel for Nokia. I'm going to take up where you just left off on what's a spreading code.
THE COURT (22:35): Yes.
MR. FLINN (22:36): And how you tell a spreading code from some of the arbitrary sequence of ones and zeros.
And we have to step back for a minute, and we have to understand how CDMA works. And this -- what I think Ms. Valentine meant when she talked about a family of codes.
For CDMA to work, for multiple users to share the same bandwidth, there has to be a preexisting, pre-defined, known set of orthogonal codes that everybody knows what they are, everybody knows that they are using, and that's what is going to be assigned to an individual user, and so that the network and the base station can figure out one call from another one.
So you have a pre-defined, finite set of codes that the system defines as the spreading codes for the system. And what the inventor said was take those codes and either use an entire one as your access in the preamble, or use a piece of one in the preamble.
Now, to get to, Judge Bryson, your question about claim differentiation, I'm actually going to differ from my col-league, Ms. Valentine, because I do believe that Claim 5 is narrower in two very important respects than Claim 1.
First of all, the language in question in -- in that patent is not "code" but "signal." And yet the word they use – that they want to say is where the code is a spreading code, so we are talking about two different words, signal in the claim and code in Claim 5.
Another very important aspect of this is -- let's assume that signal and code mean the same thing, and they don't and they can't for a reason I will explain in a second, but let's assume that they do.
The Claim 5 requires that it be an entire spreading code, whereas Claim 1 requires it to be either an entire spread-ing code or part of a spreading code. So when they say the same code is a spreading code, they mean an entire spreading code, whereas Claim 1 is broader. It could be the entire spreading code or a portion of the spreading code.
But let me get --
THE COURT (24:29): What do you call the ALJ drawing the distinction that --
MR. FLINN (24:34): Judge Luckern did not draw that distinction. It wasn't necessary for him. He followed what Ms. Valentine said and believed that the presumption was overcome.
But let me make another important thing when referred about this claim differentiation argument. In Claim 5 of the '847 patent, for example, the -- or in Claim 1 of the '966 patent, again recalling that what is accused of being -- and this is the short code as a signal. The language is, "where each of the successively transmitted signals and the message are generated using a same code."
THE COURT (25:10): Right.
MR. FLINN (25:11): Now, what is the same code that they accuse of infringing here? To understand that, we have to step back for a second and understand how this preamble is constructed.
You have something called a signature, which is a 16-bit number. It's repeated, so 256 times. A scrambling code is applied to that. That -- which is an arithmetic exclusive ware operation, produces a brand new number. That number is the actual preamble that's transmitted. So that's the signal that's transmitted. It is not the scrambling code, and it is not that signature. It is the result of the — combination of those two, which is, as we pointed out in our brief, like saying that when you transmit a ten, you are really transmitting a ten and a six - you're not. You are transmitting the result of an arithmetic operation.
Now, their argument about how the same code is met, that limitation, is they say there is the same algorithm in the standard that generates that random scrambling code. So the code they're talking about being the same code is not the same sequence of ones and zeros. They're saying the same code there is the same algorithm. It's an entirely different apples and oranges comparison when they try to read the claim on what we do.
Now, Judge Newman, you asked Mr. Dunner where in the specification it tells us what the meaning of code is, and Mr. Dunner pointed to you, to the language in the '010 patent that talks about it as a sequence of chips. But as we pointed out in our brief, and it's important to remember, a sequence of chips is another way of saying spreading code because the '010 patent never calls anything a chip other than an actual spreading code in that family of pre-defined spreading codes they talked about or a unit of time.
Whenever it talks about the data that has been spread; that is, the signal that is transmitted at the chip rate, but is the result of spreading the signal against the spreading code. They never call that a chip. They call that data at the chip rate.
So the patent distinguishes chips from information at the chip rate. And it -- I mean Mr. Dunner told you that that scrambling code, which is at the chip rate, could be used as a spreading code. He's absolutely wrong. And why is he wrong? He's wrong because if you took that scrambling code and tried to find it in that family of orthogonal codes that the system uses and knows and has to know, you won't find it there.
So any old random set of ones and zeros at the chip rate can't be used as a spreading code, because the system has to know the pre-defined universe of spreading codes, it's got to be one of them.
THE COURT (27:48): But none of that is the short code, right?
MR. FLINN (27:51): No. What you start with is, is it one of those pre-defined codes that the system uses for spreading? Did they have a relationship with each other? They have to interrelate. And it's got to be one of those universal codes. And then as a short code, you simply take a sequence of it, a piece of it. And that's not any arbi-trary sets of ones and zeros. And the inventors picked the system -- they picked short codes as the place to get their codes because they know that they are known to the system and they don't have to generate a random set. They have hardware described in the '010 patent for producing this.
Now, I want to turn very quickly, if I can, to the increasing issue. I just want to make one comment on it.
THE COURT (28:30): If I can ask you a question very briefly on this.
MR. FLINN (28:31): Sure.
THE COURT (28:34): What -- The claim construction by the ALJ included this notion of intended to be used.
MR. FLINN (28:41): Yes.
THE COURT (28:42): Do you endorse that?
MR. FLINN (28:43): I do because I think what he was trying to capture was my point, is that a CDMA system, there are a set of codes that are used for -- and are available to be used for spreading and it's a finite, pre-defined known set of numbers in a CDMA system. It has to be known, it has to be defined. And he's saying those are the numbers you can use.
Now, you pick one of those. You don't have to use it necessarily in one given instance for scrambling. You can make it do double duty as this access preamble, which is exactly what the specification called for, but it's got to be one of those known -- or codes in the orthogonal family that the '010 patent talks about.
THE COURT (29:22): You said used for scrambling. Did you mean --
MR. FLINN (29:24): No no no! I meant spreading. I apologize.
THE COURT (29:26): Okay.
MR. FLINN (29:27): I absolutely meant spreading. I absolutely meant spreading.
THE COURT (29:29): You really don't want to go there.
MR. FLINN (29:39): I really don't want to mistake that.
I want to talk about this increasing issue.
One thing that needs to be borne in mind. The Judge was asked to construe the claims of four related patents, and some of those patents use the word "increased," others use the word "increasing." And InterDigital asked Judge Luckern to construe those words to have the same meaning. And one of the reasons why when you look at in-creased and increasing, the language of increased may by itself say that's fine. But when the ALJ was asked to construe increased and increasing to mean the same thing, it undercuts the argument of the plain meaning.
And I see my time is up, and I thank the Court.
THE COURT (30:14): Do you have any more questions?
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Dunner.
MR. DUNNER (30:20): Let me address Mr. Flinn's comments first.
He said that Claim 5 is narrower. He talked about the word "signal" versus the word "code." Well, I don't under-stand his position, because Claim 5 basically says describe unit Claim 1 wherein the same code is a spreading code. And if you look at Claim 1, toward the end of the claim, it talks about the same code. The previous references are to signal, and the ALJ made clear signal is the same as code, it's just a transmitted code. So I don't think that argu-ment goes anyplace.
Another point made is that he talked about the same code issue. I really didn't follow that. The same code issue is not before this court. The Commission didn't reach it, and the ALJ didn't reach it on the question of infringement, and we pointed that out in our brief.
He said sequence of chips is another way of saying spreading code. Well, not the way the ALJ has defined it. The ALJ defined a spreading code as one which is intended to increase the width of a data signal. That's hardly the same as a sequence of chips. As to the scrambling code, we've pointed out document after document after docu-ment, including Nokia's own documents, that a scrambling code can be used to spread.
In fact, if you take the scrambling code out of the PRACH preamble, you can use it. You can have the base station coordinated with the subscriber unit and use that scrambling code as a spreading code if you want to use it. It is not used in the PRACH preamble as a spreading code although it's called a spreading code.
And the interesting thing is that the ALJ said that -- that a -- because on the question of claim construction, because these codes are used in CDMA systems, they are spreading codes. But when it came to infringement, even though the infringing devices are clearly used in CDMA systems, he said they didn't spread, clearly inconsistency between those two, and we pointed that out in our brief.
As to Ms. Valentine, she said the ALJ's construction is used or intended to be used is the same as the type of code that can be used. I rest my case. There is no way in the world that those two phrases are the same, and I think the Commission is really running away from the ALJ's system.
In any event, I think I've almost run out of time and unless there are questions, I think I've covered the points I want to cover.
THE COURT (33:06): Any questions? Any questions?
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dunner.
Now, before the parties go, the briefs -- all of the briefs have designations of confidential information. They aren't particularly consistent, but some of them seem to go right to the heart of things that we would want to refer to in explaining our decision when we reach our decision.
So I wanted to ask if those of you who have designated confidential information would take another look and see if {inaudible} to be preserved. It looks like some seems to go a bit farther than perhaps is necessary. And so if you could get together, maybe prepare three sets of new briefs with new designations of what you view as confidential and not to be mentioned in any opinion that might come up, it would be very helpful to us. If you want to keep it as it is, let us know.
MR. DUNNER (34:07): We will do that, Your Honor.
MR. FLINN (34:09): Sure. I mean I can say right now, Your Honor, that anything having to do with what the standard requires --
THE COURT (34:14): Well, we don't know who marked what.
MR. FLINN (34:16): Okay.
MR. DUNNER (34:17): Well, I will coordinate with Mr. Flinn. We are on speaking terms.
THE COURT (34:21): Good. If you will collaborate on that, it will be of help to us.
Thank you. This case is taken under submiss
Great find Magilla!
Hope that LightSquared can resolve their GPS issue and, that IDCC is somewhere in the LightSquared/Sprint mix.
And, they're all keeping their 4000share award!
InterDigital, Inc.
SEC Filing Alert
InterDigital, Inc. has filed the following document(s) with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Jun 06, 2011
Form 4 / Belk, Jeffrey K
HTML PDF
Form 4 / Kamins, Edward
HTML PDF
Form 4 / Amelio, Gilbert F
HTML PDF
Form 4 / Clontz, Steven T
HTML PDF
View all SEC Filings
Sorry - Try this one
http://www.appliednanotech.net/investors/shareholder_comm_2011-Jun.php
June 2, Shareholder Letter
http://www.appliednanotech.net/investors/shareholder_comm_2011-
LightSquared near $2 billion a year Sprint deal:
NEW YORK | Wed Jun 1, 2011 12:55pm EDT
(Reuters) - Sprint Nextel Corp is close to completing a $2 billion-a-year network sharing agreement with hedge fund billionaire Phil Falcone's LightSquared telecommunications venture, sources familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
Under the proposed agreement, LightSquared would pay $2 billion a year to rent space on Sprint's network to launch its own high-speed wireless services, according to a person who asked not to be named because the details are not yet public.
The eight-year contract would allow LightSquared, a start-up backed by Falcone's Harbinger Capital Partners, to use Sprint's network equipment on 40,000 cellular broadcast towers along with its own wireless airwaves, to launch its own high-speed service.
LightSquared would basically be a tenant on Sprint's network, according to the person familiar with the details of the plan.
"Two billion dollars a year would be in the right ballpark for a network-sharing agreement" said a second person familiar with the matter, but that person could not comment on the duration of the contract.
A spokeswoman for LightSquared declined to comment. A Sprint representative was not immediately available for a comment.
The agreement, on which the telecommunications industry has speculated for months, would help Sprint pay for a $5 billion network modernization plan it announced late last year.
It would also reduce LightSquared's expenses for launching its service compared with the cost of building its own network.
Sprint had said it would announce more details related to its network plans around midyear.
But one looming question is where LightSquared, which has openly talked about filing for an initial public offering, would come up with the $2 billion in annual payments.
The company, which has sold more than $1 billion in high-yield debt, has received a $3 billion equity infusion from Falcone's Harbinger funds.
LightSquared currently has about $1 billion in cash on its books and could raise new capital to pay for the Sprint contract, a person familiar said but did not give specifics.
(Reporting by Sinead Carew and Nadia Damouni; editing by Gerald E. McCormick)
Ishihara to Market Copper Ink Technology of Applied Nanotech
Published on May 31, 2011 at 11:10 AM
By Cameron Chai
(Thanks to a bella from RB)
"Applied Nanotech declared that Ishihara Chemical Company would be marketing its Copper Ink using technology from Applied Nanotech.
Ishihara Chemical Company intends to launch the marketing at the JPCA Show 2011 to be held at Tokyo from the 1st to 3rd of June. The JPCA show is a platform for exhibiting the leading developments in the field of electronic circuits. This would be the ideal venue for launching the copper ink technology.
At present Ishihara is involved in equipping its manufacturing facility for production and plans to focus on marketing a broad range of products such as solar cells, RFID tags, LED lighting, LED displays, medical sensors and intelligent packaging. The R&D award for the year 2010 was jointly won by Applied Nanotech and Ishihara for the development of inkjettable copper inks. The copper inks could be deposited through many printing technologies on a thin, flexible substrate. Copper ink technology, thus, opened avenues for more energy efficient and eco-friendly products.
Applied Nanotech had declared in 2009 that it had signed an exclusive agreement with Ishihara Chemical Company for the manufacture and commercialisation of nano-copper inks and pastes. The manufacturing facility of Ishihara would be helping in the production of low cost copper nano inks and would also aid Applied Nanotech in marketing the product."
Source: http://www.appliednanotech.net/
From drhoho on Raging Bull- Thanks for the Heads Up! Here's the actual MDP presentation. Excellent material and insights.
http://www.appliednanotech.net/investors/presentations/IR_Presentation-MDB-05-11.pdf
Ishihara To Begin Marketing Applied Nanotech Copper Ink Technology
Press Release
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Ishihara-to-Begin-Marketing-pz-3107914373.html?x=0&.v=1
Nice write-up of APNT on Seeking Alpha
http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/397672-arnold-landy/178827-applied-nanotech-microcap-on-the-cusp-of-royalty-income
Sprint drops strongest LTE hints yet
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=464629
MDB Capital Group Announces Winners of 2nd Annual Bright Lights Awards
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/mdb-capital-group-announces-winners-of-2nd-annual-bright-lights-awards-121623988.html
APNT - Reminder! These 2 events happen yesterday and next Wed. Should be getting feedback shortly.
Applied Nanotech Launches New Solar Inks Pilot Manufacturing Line
Nanoparticle Ink Technology Set to Transform Solar Industry by Driving Down Material Costs and Improving Manufacturing Efficiencies.
http://www.appliednanotech.net/news/110420_New_Solar_Inks_Pilot_Manufacturing_Line.php
Applied Nanotech Holdings to Present at MDB Capital’s Bright Lights Conference in New York City on May 11, 2011
Applied Nanotech Holdings Among MDB Capital Group’s Small-Cap Intellectual Property Leaders.
http://www.appliednanotech.net/news/110427_BrightLights-PressRelease.php
Nortel Gets Court Nod for Auction of Patents
By PEG BRICKLEY - WSJ
Nortel Networks Corp. on Monday won court approval to go ahead with the final big auction of its two-year global liquidation, with Google Inc. poised to open the bidding on a collection of patents at $900 million.
Judges in the U.S. and Canada signed off on rules that will govern the competition at the June 20 sale of the collection of some 6,000 patents for telecommunications, Web, wireless and other technology.
Teams of bidders may combine to go up against Google under the rules. RPX Corp., a patent-service company, has put together a consortium of possible bidders, an attorney for the San Francisco company said Monday.
If beaten, Google gets up to $29 million as consolation, a sum that includes a $25 million breakup fee. Results of the auction will be evaluated at a joint hearing of the U.S. and Canadian courts June 30, under the rules.
The patent auction has the highest opening price of any in the series of sales that has seen the dismantling of the one-time telecommunications equipment powerhouse. So far, Nortel has raised $3.2 billion by selling its operations as it prepares to wind up the two-year liquidation due to insolvency.
"We're hoping for a vigorous auction," said Nortel's U.S. attorney, Lisa Schweitzer, who is with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton.
An inventor who says Nortel's troubles have cost him his pension, disability and other benefits warned in court filings that the patents could be diminished in value if the people whose names are on the patents wind up at the back of the line of creditors.
"If you make a phone call, use your mobile phone or WiFi, you are using products and inventions which are my work," wrote former Nortel inventor David G. Steer. His name appears on dozens of patents in the portfolio being sold, he said.
Pension, health care and other benefits lost in Nortel's bankruptcy were part of a two-way bargain that needs to be respected if the winner of the patent auction wants inventor cooperation, Mr. Steer contended.
He swapped court papers with Nortel over how much trouble the company's inventors could make for the new owner of the patent portfolio. As a co-owner of the patents, Mr. Steer said, he could withhold consent to the use of the patents in litigation, and even potentially grant licenses to shield anyone sued for alleged infringement on the basis of the Nortel patents.
Nortel disputes that position and says Mr. Steer's claims amount to compensation claims, like those of other employees.
Mr. Steer said he brought his concerns to the forefront now so potential buyers would be aware they have to deal with inventors whose cooperation may be essential to getting the value out of the patents.
Nortel said Mr. Steer has no ownership rights over the patents. Inventors had employment and assignment agreements that called for them to sign over their rights, a Nortel attorney said Monday.
The Toronto company filed for protection from creditors around the world in January 2009. As it prepares for the auction, Nortel is also preparing for an intercompany fight over the cash that stacked up due to sales.
Judges in the U.S. and Canada have set aside two weeks in December to try the dispute over how to divide the money among different parts of Nortel.
Papers filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., estimate the liabilities of Nortel's U.S. arm at about $5.6 billion. Nortel's European and British units are demanding $14 billion from the Canadian parent company, including their alleged fair share of past sales, pension shortfalls and damages for alleged mismanagement. The claims from Nortel Europe will be tested in court in September.
Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299571398866698.html#ixzz1LIpIgfCv
10Q out
http://xml.10kwizard.com/filing_raw.php?repo=tenk&ipage=7578319
Filed on: May 2, 2011
Applied Nanotech Holdings to Present at MDB Capital's Bright Lights Conference in New York City on May 11, 2011
Press Release Source: Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. On Wednesday April 27, 2011, 9:15 am
NEW YORK, April 27, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:APNT - News) is pleased to announce its selection for the prestigious NYC Bright Lights Conference to be held on May 10 and May 11, 2011 at the Le Parker Meridien Hotel in New York City. Applied Nanotech will present at 11:00 a.m. on May 11. Bright Lights is the only conference of its kind with an exclusive focus on publicly-traded companies with disruptive and market changing intellectual property (IP).
Applied Nanotech was selected from MDB's 2011 group of "Best and Brightest" small-cap companies, a group that is advancing some of today's most innovative and market-leading intellectual property (IP). Applied Nanotech was ranked in the 90th percentile for its technology leadership from more than 1,500 small-cap companies with granted U.S. patents, as rated by PatentVest, MDB's proprietary IP business intelligence platform.
Applied Nanotech will present to renowned IP innovation leaders and institutional investors that are focused on shaping policies and strategies for IP monetization and value creation. During the presentation, the company will also discuss recent accomplishments of its pilot manufacturing line for non-contact printable metallic inks used in the manufacturing of silicon solar cells and its new carbon nanotube-based composites and materials, which have been shown to dramatically improve the performance of golf clubs and racquets.
Christopher Marlett, CEO at MDB Capital Group, comments, "It's a rare and exciting opportunity to have so many key players that are driving IP asset monetization together under one roof and we look forward to sharing Applied Nanotech's new carbon nanotube and nanoparticle ink technologies with other innovators and investors at the Bright Lights conference."
Bright Lights also features high-profile speakers including the top IP experts in the nation, such as David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), who will be joining as a keynote speaker; in addition to Marshall Phelps, former head of Microsoft IP, and John Cronin, former head of IBM's Patent Factory, and Paul Ryan of Acacia Research.
The second annual Bright Lights Conference will take place on May 10 -11th at the Le Parker Meridien Hotel in New York City. To learn more about the event, please visit: http://www.mdb.com
Nanoparticle Ink Technology Set to Transform Solar Industry by Driving Down Material Costs and Improving Manufacturing Efficiencies
Press Release Source: Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. On Wednesday April 20, 2011, 9:15 am
AUSTIN, Texas, April 20, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:APNT - News) is pleased to announce the official launch of its new solar inks pilot manufacturing line with a ribbon cutting ceremony on Friday, May 6, 2011 at 2:00pm CDT at Applied Nanotech's newly extended facility. The ceremony will begin with comments by Lee Leffingwell, Austin City Mayor, Lloyd Doggett, Congressman, 25th District of Texas and Applied Nanotech executive officers, Dr. Zvi Yaniv, and Doug Baker. The launch will end with a tour of the facility and a networking hour.
Applied Nanotech's nanoparticle ink technology formulations of aluminum, copper, nickel and silver will be delivered using aerosolized jet, inkjet and spray coating methods and other non-contact printing techniques that will enable ultra-thin silicon wafers to be used for photovoltaic applications.
Currently, solar cell wafers must be thick enough to survive the direct contact metallization processes which use screen printing equipment that comes in direct contact with the wafer and can exert enough force to cause ultra-thin wafers to break. Silicon is the largest cost in conventional solar cell production and the primary material in solar cells, making up 50-60 percent of overall cost. Using methods such as inkjet, aerosol jet and spray coating -- all non-contact methods -- will allow solar companies to save substantial material costs on the amount of silicon used by enabling the use of thin wafers. "Through its proprietary nanoparticle inks and non-contact printing methods, Applied Nanotech is leading the transition to use thin solar wafers in high throughput production environments," commented Dr. Zvi Yaniv, CEO of Applied Nanotech, Inc. "The solar industry is set to be transformed by nanotechnology as new inking techniques work to lower overall solar cell costs and preserve solar as one of the leading renewable energy options in the market for decades to come."
In September 2010, Applied Nanotech was awarded $1.6 million in federal funding as part of The Recovery Act funds administered through the Department of Energy to develop its solar inks pilot manufacturing line. Applied Nanotech added 4,000 square feet to its 16,000 square foot existing state-of-the-art facility, located in Austin, Texas. The new addition enables the company to develop and produce prototypes using its metallic inks printed onto thin silicon solar cells, and contributes to local clean energy job creation. "The fact that we are now able to produce sample inks in substantial quantities will accelerate commercialization [by other manufacturers] and licensing of our nanoparticle inks and non-contact printable approach," stated Doug Baker, CEO of Applied Nanotech Holdings Inc.
Apple sues Samsung, says stop copying us
Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:30am EDT
By Dan Levine and Miyoung Kim
SAN FRANCISCO/SEOUL (Reuters)- Apple Inc sued Samsung Electronics claiming the South Korean firm's Galaxy line of mobile phones and tablets "slavishly" copies the iPhone and iPad, according to court papers, a move analysts say is aimed at keeping its close rivals at bay.
Apple is one participant in a web of litigation among phone makers and software firms over who owns the patents used in smartphones, as rivals aggressively rush into the smartphone and tablet market which the U.S. firm jumpstarted with iPhone and iPad.
Nokia and Apple have sued each other in numerous courts and as recently as last month Nokia filed a complaint with the U.S. trade panel alleging that Apple infringes its patents in iPhones, iPads and other products.
Samsung is one of the fastest growing smartphone makers and has emerged as Apple's strongest competitor in the booming tablet market with models in three sizes but it remains a distant second in the space.
"If Apple fails to fend off Android, it will within a year or two find itself in a situation like Research in Motion, even if at a higher level (initially)," said Florian Mueller, a technology specialist and blogger on patent battles.
"Apple has realized this already as its new lawsuit against Samsung shows, but given what's at stake, I think Apple would have to do much more than this. It would have to sue more Android device makers and over more patents."
Samsung's Galaxy products use Google's Android operating system, which directly competes with Apple's mobile software. However, Apple's claims against Samsung focus on Galaxy's design features, such as the look of its screen icons, the lawsuit said.
The lawsuit, filed on Friday, alleges Samsung violated Apple's patents and trademarks. Continued...
View article on single page
Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page
http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCATRE73I14U20110419
Ryo Ishikawa and Yonex Clubs with Nanopreme
This link shows results of Ryo's improved driving distances
for the US Open. In round 4, he averaged over 301 yards
per drive and 293+ yards for the tournament.
http://www.yonex.com/golf/ryoishikawa/topix.html
(Voluntary Disclosure: Position- Long; ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
This is from "BigSpender" on Raging Bull
APNT in "Best and Brightest" small-cap companies
franfurt
30 Mar 2011, 11:29 AM EDT
MDB Capital Group to Showcase Small-Cap IP Leaders Possessing Disruptive Technologies at its 2nd Annual Bright Lights Conference
May 10 - 11th
By: PR Newswire
Mar. 30, 2011 09:15 AM
NEW YORK, March 30, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- MDB Capital Group is pleased to announce the preliminary list of presenting companies for its 2nd Annual Bright Lights Conference to be held on May 10-11, 2011 at Le Parker Meridien Hotel in New York City. Selected from MDB's 2011 list of 150 "Best and Brightest" small-cap companies, this group of presenting companies is advancing some of today's most innovative and market-leading intellectual property (IP). Bright Lights is the only conference with an exclusive focus on publicly-traded companies possessing disruptive and market changing IP, providing institutional investors with a venue to discover the largely unrecognized value of embedded IP.
. . . . . . .
I have no idea whether or not this is a big deal but I figure any mention of APNT can't be bad. More at this link...
http://www.sys-con.com/node/1773549
Looks like he started on 3/14...Thanks to Kent over on AB
http://sitepilot.firmseek.com/client/mckool/www/assets/attachments/50.pdf
AT&T to Buy T-Mobile USA in $39 Billion Deal
AT&T announced on Sunday that it has agreed to buy T-Mobile
USA from Deutsche Telekom for $39 billion in cash and stock,
in one of the biggest mergers since the onset of the
financial crisis.
The deal will dramatically bolster AT&T's footprint in the
country, adding an additional 46.5 million customers.
Under the terms of the deal, AT&T will pay $25 billion in
cash and the rest in stock. Deutsche Telekom will in turn
gain an 8 percent stake in AT&T and a seat on the American
telecom giant's board.
Read More:
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/03/20/att-to-buy-t-mobile-usa-for-39-billion/?emc=na
From a bella on Raging Bull (NanoPreme is the name for APNT tech)
By: a_bella
16 Mar 2011, 10:31 AM EDT
Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 8221 of 8225
Jump to msg. #
Finally… Incredible Power AND Fast Handling!
"Launched at the YONEX All England Championships, VOLTRIC 80 combines extreme power and lightning fast racquet handling - for the first time ever in a single racquet - to take your game to a whole new level.
The YONEX Research and Development Team have spent five years researching materials which will provide both high strength and high repulsion power - a task often thought to be impossible using conventional carbon technology.
By positioning NANOPREME throughout the entire shaft, YONEX has developed a racquet that is more stable, more resilient and more powerful than ever before. YONEX has agreed world exclusive rights to utilise NANOPREME - the latest cutting-edge development in 'Nano-technology' - in their badminton equipment, so you won’t find this technology anywhere else! In combination with the Tri-Voltage System, providing exceptional balance across the racquet frame, VOLTRIC 80 is the racquet of the future - available now."
For more information about the VOLTRIC 80, click here:
BColor (from RBull) gives us some good data on How we'll make $ from our "inks" (posts are in reverse order to aid understanding)
By: boldcolor10
08 Mar 2011, 05:14 AM EST
Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 8208 of 8209
Jump to msg. #
JimmyLee additional post of interest for review
7717, 7724, 7787, 7888, 7889, 7892, 7902, 7909, 7910,
8085, 8086 (these post give dates when Optomec and Manz get monies from sales so allow some time and monies from Ishihara to APNT end of 2011 as stated by APNT " seems to complete the the story". Ishihara is last on the list since they provide material for prototype's, early preproduction runs and then finally larger production production runs. Just more indication that the timing of events are in line.
By: boldcolor10
08 Mar 2011, 12:41 AM EST
Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 8207 of 8209
(Reply to 8206 by boldcolor10)
Jump to msg. #
JimmyLee the term collector (In a working solar cell, collector lines) becomes very important when you look at Optomecs Approved Material List and which suppliers are approved for application of collector is APNT. There are several other articles relative to Manz but the big one is manz is the turnkey manufacturing source here. They pay the money for the research and they make the decisions and they also select the suppliers as well as they determinate who they wish. Bottom line as i see it they control Optomec and Ishihara and guess who controls APNT ink activity here.
By: boldcolor10
08 Mar 2011, 12:26 AM EST
Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 8206 of 8209
Jump to msg. #
JimmyLee a little more info
Research from Germany's Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems has shown that a material-depositing technology by Optomec could boost solar cell efficiency by more than 2 percentage points.
Cyrstalline-silicon solar cells treated with Optomec's Aerosol Jet system can reach 20.3 percent efficiency, the company said this week. That means the cell can convert 20.3 percent of the sunlight that hits it into electricity.
In comparison, cells made with a screen-printing system commonly used today can achieve 16 percent to 18 percent efficiency.
Optomec, a long-time electronics manufacturing equipment maker, is entering the solar market with the Aerosol Jet system. In May, the Albuquerque, N.M. company said it was partnering with Manz Automation in Germany to commercialize the technology.
Optomec will make the key components while Manz will assemble them into a system for the marketplace. Optomec and Manz plan to provide trial systems to customers during the firs half of 2009, said Ken Vartanian, marketing director for Optomec. He declined to name the customers.
The company's technology deposits a mix of glass and silver to form collector lines and bus bars on solar cells. In a working solar cell, collector lines take the electricity generated and send it to the bus bars as part of the process of ferrying the power produced from an energy system.
The number of collector lines on each cell can vary. Typically a cell has roughly 80 collector lines and two or more bus bars, Vartanian said.
"If you think bus bars as the superhighway and collector lines as the side streets feeding into it," Vartanian said.
He said the technology can create much thinner collector lines than a screen-printing system, so that more space on each solar cell is exposed to the sunlight for generating power.
Lines made with Aerosol jets have a width of 40 microns to 50 microns, Vartanian said. With screen-printing, the width would reach 100 microns to 120 microns, he added.
Optomec will be competing with some established players. Companies that make screen-printing systems include Applied Materials in Santa Clara, Calif., and GT Solar in Merrimack, N.H.
Optomec has been developing material-printing technology for electronics and life sciences markets for years. Spotting an opportunity in the solar market, in 2007 the company launched its Aerosol Jet Solar Lab system, which enables solar cell makers and researchers to take the technology on a test run.
Though Solar Lab, Optomec hopes to convince companies to buy the commercial system it's developing with Manz. The Solar Lab costs about $300,000 in the United States, and it is a little higher elsewhere after taking shipping and other costs into account.
The Solar Lab system is not automated and has 10 nozzles instead of the 40 planned for the commercial system, Vartanian said.
Fraunhofer became a customer three years ago, and a researcher there presented the institute's findings at a European Union-sponsored workshop in the Netherlands in October (see presentation).
Postyle, My apologies for the repeat. I missed your post when I scanned the board.
Seeking Alpha article on 11 Oversold Companies (IDCC included of course)
http://seekingalpha.com/article/256931-11-oversold-companies-with-enough-cash-to-cover-1-years-of-operating-expenses?source=email_watchlist
Earnings tomorrow!
From today's trading, it looks like no one expects Break Even or even more Positive news.
IMO I hope to see the 2011 "breakout" start tomorrow.
CNT's - How They Function - Their Useful Properties!
By: franfurt
28 Feb 2011, 10:22 AM EST
Rating: post rating 0 Rate this post: Msg. 8159 of 8159
Jump to msg. #
Functionalized carbon nanotubes expand epoxy applications
February 28, 2011 -- Various industries -- such as aerospace, sporting goods manufacturers, construction – are incorporating technological advances using nanocomposites, with extraordinary results. Epoxy materials are being transformed into stiffer, lighter, and stronger materials thanks to the addition of fullerenes and carbon nanotubes (CNTs). Dongsheng Mao, Applied Nanotech, Applied Nanotech Holdings (APNT), describes a process involving multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) that have stronger mechanical properties yet remain lightweight and within end-product cost parameters.
. . . . . . .
Don't ask me what it all means, just click the link for the rest of the article. If it's been posted already, beg everyone's pardon.
http://www.electroiq.com/index/display/nanotech-article-display/6609895990/articles/small-times/nanotechmems/materials/carbon-nanotubes/2011/2/functionalized-carbon-nanotubes-cnts-expand-epoxy-applications.html
Applied Nanotech to Display Its Non-Contact Printable Metallic Inks for Solar
Press Release Source: Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. On Monday February 14, 2011, 9:15 am
AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 14, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Applied Nanotech Holdings, Inc. (OTCBB:APNT) is pleased to announce that it will showcase its non-contact printable metallic inks for use in the manufacturing of silicon solar cells at SNEC PV Power Expo 2011. The conference will be held from February 22-24, 2011 in Shanghai and is the largest solar show in Asia with 100,000 participants anticipated. Applied Nanotech will be at booth E7-213
China is home to some of the world's leading solar cell manufacturers and one of Applied Nanotech's most important potential customer bases. Coming out on top in 2009, five of the top 10 solar panel makers in the world came from China, according to GTM Research. Chinese companies were also expected to have led the world in solar cell and module manufacturing spending in 2010, accounting for seven of the 10 largest industry gainers, according to market research firm, iSuppli.
"We see China as an important market segment for our metallic ink and paste products," commented Doug Baker, CEO of Applied Nanotech Holdings. "The SNEC show will enable us to exhibit our products to the largest solar cell manufacturers in the world."
Applied Nanotech will be exhibiting aluminum, nickel, and copper formulations that can be printed using inkjet, aerosolized jet, spray coating, and other non-contact methods for patterning high resolution lines with high conductivity. Non-contact printing methods will enable future generations of ultra thin solar cells that will significantly reduce the cost per watt of energy produced. Applied Nanotech will also be exhibiting screen printable pastes for conventional solar cell manufacturing processes as well as other inks and pastes developed for the general printed electronics industry.
For more information about the exhibition and conference, see the conference website at http://www.snec.org.cn/zh1_e.asp.
NOK now under $9....
Downgraded by Cowen, (Outperform to Underperform)
HSBS, (Neutral to Underperform)
and JP Morgan, (Overweight to Underweight)
FYI....Sorry for boring some, But now $.70 on 230,000
And who is Fortress Investment Group? http://www.fortressinv.com/AboutFortress/Default.aspx
FYI....Sorry for boring some, But $.53 on 239,400
InterDigital to Participate in the Innovation Alliance's "Patents, Innovation and Job Creation: A Virtuous Circle" Conference
Washington, D.C. Event to Promote the Economic Value of Patents and a Vigorous U.S. Patent Office
KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ: IDCC) today announced its participation in the Innovation Alliance's Conference, "Patents, Innovation and Job Creation: A Virtuous Circle," to be held on January 21, 2011 in Washington, D.C. InterDigital's President and Chief Executive Officer, William J. Merritt, will open the event and introduce the Honorable Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The conference will feature top business leaders, experts, inventors and entrepreneurs in a discussion of the economic impact of innovation, and an examination of the significance of patents on a variety of economic factors, including job growth and employment stability.
"InterDigital's long heritage in developing cutting-edge technological innovations with industry-wide impact has been supported by a system that values and protects inventions. I am pleased to participate in a dialogue with other leading research companies and thought leaders in intellectual property on the importance of innovation to the US and world economy," said Mr. Merritt. "Indeed, we believe creativity and innovation have and will continue to be the driving force for U.S. economic growth, as is a robust patent system."
InterDigital® develops state-of-the-art wireless technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. A founding member of the Innovation Alliance, InterDigital has been shaping the future of wireless through advancing technological innovations that will enable more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience. The company is focused on three areas to advance bandwidth innovations: spectrum optimization; cross-network connectivity and mobility; and intelligent data delivery techniques. These solutions directly benefit component, device and infrastructure manufacturers, network operators, content and applications providers, and billions of consumers globally.
Event Information
January 21, 2011
"Patents, Innovation and Job Creation: A Virtuous Circle,"
Keynote remarks by USPTO Director David Kappos.
As the U.S. economy struggles with high unemployment, the Innovation Alliance hosts a half-day discussion with inventors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, and industry experts on the economic value of patents and a vigorous USPTO. The conference features remarks from David Kappos, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Paul Michel, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Retired Chief Judge. Gene Quinn, founder of IPWatchdog, Inc and Kim Hart, reporter at Politico, will moderate morning panels on creating jobs and the impact of patents on the modern innovation economy.
About the Innovation Alliance
The Innovation Alliance is committed to improving patent quality and protecting and promoting innovation. For more information about the organization, or to attend the event, please see www.innovationalliance.net.
About InterDigital
InterDigital develops fundamental wireless technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry's most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and partnerships with many of the world's leading wireless companies.