Rambus (RMBS)

[docrew0]

Re: Patent Analysis

Those of you that read my posts know I don’t give up on matters of research till I’ve exhausted the available facts. So please excuse my crude and long-winded format. In addition I offer no pretense as a qualified analyst just a stockholder doing the Due.


I’ve been quietly reading up on the subject and I began asking myself a few questions.

1) When did Rambus know about Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre and the Wayne D. Grover Patent? “Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre now referred to as Alberta or Grover.”
2) I also asked myself when did Alberta know about Rambus? “Rambus now referred to as Rambus or Farmwald.”
3) Did Alberta abandon the 5,361,277 patent?
4) How early could either party have discovered each other?
5) Did Alberta bare any responsibility in defending this 5,361,277 patent before now?

You may find my conclusions totally off base. Anyone is welcome to take the research below to the next level. Please make your own opinions and disregard mine, “I encourage it.” I'll give you a primer on boolean search strings to get you started; you come up with the new questions and ask them.

This research was not designed to challenge the 5,361,277 patent technically from an electronics standpoint, if your qualified go ahead and do that.

This is what I found.

Obviously by now everyone has read the M•CAM document as a starting point like me but I wasn’t satisfied. http://www.m-cam.com/patentlyobvious/20010223_rambus.pdf
So I did some reading on the USPTO site so I could discover how prior art searches are performed and cross-referenced.

In the course of prior art searches the Boolean search must be used.
An advanced USPTO search is required. The link is: http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm
You need the following information for the patent cross-reference.
a) Inventor Name, Field Code = IN
b) Referenced By, Field Code = REF
The search string for the Farmwald patents identifying the “Grover patent 5,361,277” as prior art is:
IN/Farmwald-Michael and REF/5361277
Copy and past this search string into the Query window.

Now from these search results it can be determined when Rambus first identified the Grover patent. The first Rambus patent referencing the Grover prior art we are seeking is at the bottom of the 32 queried results. This is patent number 5,513,327 Filed: March 31, 1994. The USPTO issued Rambus this patent April 30, 1996.

To determine the earliest point when Grover could have realized and defended his patent we need to do a reverse reference search. http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm
From this window we want to reference all patents that list the Grover Patent. So we need the Grover patent # it is 5361277. The Boolean search string is REF/5,361,277
Today this yields 102 hits the earliest are on the last page, “page 3.” Hit # 102 is Rambus Patent # 5,513,327 See the dates.

If Grover was performing these steps back in the days during his application up till now he could easily see where his patent and derivatives of it were being used. Any interested party defending their patent would search the possible offending inventors and review each patent for additional art or descriptions that may have been missed in an open search. Then his next step is to challenge the targeted patents by contacting the USPTO or ask the other company to buy a license.

This procedure is paramount in defending a companies I.P.. It also needs to be routinely repeated to see if the art is being borrowed or used in another approach or technology. Now if any other patents are revealed it’s up to the patent holder to challenge and defend them.

Here is yet another search that can yield information pertaining to possible abandonment.

It’s logical to ask the question is the Patent being developed further or is the inventor utilizing it in other inventions? This question can also lend itself to surmise if the patent has been abandoned. The search string is: REF/5361277 and IN/Grover-Wayne-D This result should indicate derivatives of the 5,361,277 by Grover.
The information you get from that search is: “No patents have matched your query” Even swapping the Boolean terms doesn’t work.
When each search term is used by itself “REF/5361277” or “IN/Grover-Wayne-D or IN/Grover-$” the query produces results. So we can assume no derivatives of this patent are currently being developed from its “originator/inventor.” Remember any one of the 102 hits from before could still be licensed clients of Alberta.
See just a few:
6,229,368
6,909,317
6,898,726

Conclusions:
1) Rambus knew about the Alberta patent at least by March 31, 1994 and notified the USPTO by filing the 5,513,327 patent. “It has Grover prior art listed!”
2) Rambus filing the 5,513,327 listing the Alberta prior art tells us that each party had the ability to find one another before the patents had been accepted. So Rambus “could have” known about Alberta by, before or after the March 5, 1992 Rambus Appl. No.: 849211 for the 703 patent. “Certainly/definitely before 5,513,327 March 31, 1994.” By how much we can’t say?
3) It can also be assumed if Alberta didn’t do a periodic exhaustive search and just looked for the easy prior art listings they should have known about Rambus beginning by “March 31, 1994 Rambus Appl. No.: 222646 patent 5,513,327” and at least by or shortly after the “April 30, 1996 Rambus Appl. acceptance 5,513,327.” “This is a most reasonable window.”
4) Since Rambus was able to ascertain, recognize and find the Alberta prior art while still in the application phase its logical they “Alberta” should have been able to find the Rambus Appl. No.: 222646 Patent 5,513,327 “It listed Alberta as prior art”. also the Alberta application acceptance was November 1, 1994. Rambus filed its 222646 application March 31, 1994
5) that’s a 7 month time overlap when they “Alberta” should have seen “Alberta” prior art was listed from the Farmwald application.
6) Alberta should reasonably and easily have been able to deduce and find the 5,243,703 patents after the later filing of Rambus Appl. No.: 222646. “It comes up in a straight forward search, find one prior art listing then search that inventors group for key words” example search IN/Farmwald-Michael and TTL/clock
7) Its reasonable to also assume Appl. No.: 849211 for the 703 patent could also have been discovered by Alberta before its approval September 7, 1993. I make this assumption because Rambus did it on the Alberta 5,361,277 patent.
8) No derivative of the 5,361,277 has been published from Alberta since it was filed. “It appeared to be abandoned.”
9) 102 derivatives have been filed from others. Alberta could have clients from this group. But NONE list Grover or Alberta as co-inventors.
10) The time from Rambus's filing date of 5,243,703 till the time Alberta filed a claim with Payne is 13 years, 8 months and 10 days. “March 5, 1992 – November 15th, 2005

References:
http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5712882.html
http://www.m-cam.com/patentlyobvious/20010223_rambus.pdf
http://www.ee.ualberta.ca/~grover/wdgpatents.html
http://www.trlabs.ca/techshowcase/patentsissued.html
http://www.trlabs.ca/techshowcase/US%205,361,277.pdf

I still didn’t find an answer to “Did Alberta bare any responsibility in defending this 5,361,277 patent before now?” If we take the discussion from the Rambus analysts meeting the other day they addressed this issue in a round about way. Someone “any of you” should enlighten us with some additional research.

One thing I did read is you can’t just file a patent and do nothing with it and tie it up. Has Alberta incorporated 5,361,277 into any products? Have they licensed it to anyone?

I’m tiered and it shows in my conclusions.
Have fun "you take this to the next level it yours."

docrew0