Jim/Loop, my pleasure. I guess this is my way of venting, but it seems to help me keep my head clear by putting this stuff down on "paper".
I hope I'm on the right track here, but it just seems ridiculous for the ALJ to conclude that the inventors of the '579 did NOT intend the general apparatus in claim 1 to cover both the base station and the handset, given the fact that the specification (and the standard itself) clearly disclose the use of the same technique for generating the identical code at both ends.
After all, if you were going to describe an invention that generates a "code" like this, saying it is a code that (was) used to scramble data would be perfectly logical regardless of whether you intended to use the code to descramble the data downstream. After all, what code does the ALJ think needs to be generated?
It would be a completely different story if IDCC's invention was made in the context of a different standard (like their power ramp up patents that came out of BCDMA) than one that has been clearly documented as an invention made during 3G working group meetings.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
