Replies to post #6218 on Rambus (RMBS)

[smd1234]

docrew0 - BRAVO. You have presented a multicourse meal of research for this hungry investor! Thanks!

[smd1234]

I thought the application remains secret 'til the patent issues?

[Threejack]

Re: Patent Analysis


Hey docrew0,

You continue to impress. For a guy who says he only asks questions, you sure dig in and uncover some interesting facts. Perhaps one of the legal experts on the boards can give a read on what all this might mean.

re: 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

As a LL, wonder why this is important? With regard to enforceability, the relevant patent is the Alberta 5,361,277, right?

Know you posed the question in an earlier post. but did we ever determine the Period of Enforceability for a U.S. Patent? Based on the reference you cited, looked like 23 years from the application date for patents predating June 8, 1995 (17 patent life + 6 statute of limitations), but no one confirmed this.

Threejack

[dfwl28]

docrewo,

That was a great effort in researching the patent history of Grover. Thanks for the effort and the education on the research techniques. Humbly,

DFW

[calbiker]

Re: Patent Analysis

Nice work.

Rambus Patent 5,513,327 references the Grover patent ('277) as prior art. But the '327 patent is not in direct conflict with the '277 patent in regards to the invention of the disputed clock architecture. A quick read on the '327 patent gave me the impression it reads on the clock topology of SDRAM or DDR, not RDRAM. Therefore is was easy for the PTO to approve the '327.

[JMKel]

If you take a look at the prior art references on the Grover patent you will notice that there are only four. They left out the Heller patent.

Rambus did a much better prior art search than Alberta Telecommuincations.