Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

now infringeon:

RAMBUS does not infringe Grover Patent
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:13 am
Msg: 826425 of 826740

The problem with the Grover patent is that its first claim does not read on the RAMBUS patents.

The RAMBUS does not require that the device generating the master clock signal also receive "a return reference signal from said second site to said first site upon arrival of said outgoing reference signal at said second site;"

Hence, the first claim does not read on RAMBUS clock apparatus which operates "open loop".

RAMBUS is using the trace lengths to determine realtive phase while Grover is using clock signals received at the transmiting site.






The Grover patent requires that the following:

A clock distribution apparatus for use in providing a common absolute time reference to spatially distributed application modules requiring synchronized clocks, said apparatus comprising:

means for transmitting an outgoing reference signal from a first site to a second site and a return reference signal from said second site to said first site upon arrival of said outgoing reference signal at said second site; and

means at each said application module for detecting an outgoing reference signal and a corresponding return reference signal and producing a local phase reference signal approximately midway through the time interval required for said outgoing reference signal to travel from a signal detecting site at said application module to said second site and said return reference signal to travel from said second site to said signal detecting site.

Re: RAMBUS does not infringe Grover Pate
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:18 am
Msg: 826436 of 826740

Samsung must be really desperate to provide a "prior art" patent that does not even read on RAMBUS clock patents.

It is obvious when the first and the main claim does not read on Rambus that RAMBUS does not infringe Grover. What are these guys smoking!

In fact, the RAMBUS patent is an improvement over Grover in that it does not require reception circuitry at the site of the master clock transmission. It is simpler and chearper and therefore patentable over Grover.

The Verdict on HPQ and Grover Patents
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:27 am
Msg: 826463 of 826740

The verdict on the HPQ patent has already been determined by the US Patent Office.

The Verdict on the Grover patent is that RAMBUS does not infringe. The Grover patent is much more complex than the RAMBUS patent.
Grover is a "closed loop" control timing control system while Rambus is an "open loop" timing control system.

Grover was intended to be used in telecommunication applications where the clock signal is a radio wave or someother part of the electromagnetic spectrum not an electricla signal on a copper trace. Grover would be useful for synchronizing groundsation to satellites. RAMBUS would be useless for that purpose.
----------------------------------
Thanks Infringeon2003! I take it you are distinguishing between an "open-loop" and a "closed-loop" system (with feedback) and that would be a major demonstrable difference?
----------------------------------
Re: RAMBUS does not infringe Grover Pate
by: infringeon2003 11/18/05 11:34 am
Msg: 826473 of 826740

In the case of a memory system it is a huge difference. RAMBUS requires no clock reception circuitry or phase determination circuitry at the transmiting site of its master clock.

Memory components are fixed on a printed circuit board at manufacturing time.
RAMBUS has a clearly superior solution for the design of memory boards and systems over what one would have to do to implement Grover in a memory system or board.

The telecommunictation application must be able to handle communications between a groundstation and application nodes which are
in motion around the earth on on the earth surface.