FreeLists / si-list / [SI-LIST] Re: [SPAM] Re: Question about split gnd planes

["JaMi Smith" <jamismith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please See Below,

JaMi

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kenneth W. Egan" <kegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jamismith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:59 PM
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: [SPAM] Re: Question about split gnd planes


>
>     Apple doesn't have to do anything of the sort. Prior Art research is
the
> oenus of the patent examiner.

This is not necessarily so.

Typically the Examiner will throw a few examples of Prior Art at you that he
may believe is applicable. Unfortunately, many times the Examiners can not
even understand the Patent Applications that they are Examining, not only
due to its complexity, but due to the fact that most Patents are for things
that are state of the art, and on the cutting edge of technology. With all
due respect, these Examiners are Lawyers, and aside from Einstien, most of
are not theoretical physicist's. Additionally, with no disrespect intended,
it is easy to snow the Examiner, or dazzle him with your company's
brilliance.

I made my first trip the the Patent Office on July 5, 1972, just after they
had finished moving to Crystal City, Virginia. I actually got to talk to the
Examiner of the specific Art Class that one of my inventions fell into, and
he actually took me back into the Examiner's own files, and he showed me
which 4 drawers that I had to look thru, and told me that if it wasn't in
there, all I would have to do was file and he would grant the patent.
Anyway, that day, I subscribed to everything that was published by either
the Patent Office itself, or the USGPO, all on what they then called a
Perpetual Subscription, where all of your "Manuals" would be completely
updated every 4 months. Well, somewhere in the early eightiesss, all of the
Perpetual Subscriptions expired, and I just let them lapse somewhere along
the way after that. At one point in the early Seventies, I even seriously
thought about becoming a Patent Agent . . . but that is a storiy for another
time .

I spent an entire summer back in the late seventies working to overcome a
rejection of a Patent Application, due to the issue of Prior Art.

I overcame those objections, and ultimately the U.S. Patent (4,096,248 if I
remember correctly), as well as several foreign Patents were granted.

It is the job of the Patent Attorney to construct the Specification and
Claims such that they can withstand not only the challanges of infringment,
but also the challange of Prior Art.

In addition to having to answer the challanges of the Patent Examiner, I
additionally spent about two and a half years before a Law and Motion Judge,
In a Superior Court (in California),defending my ownership of that U.S.
Patent, successfully I might add.

>                                . . . Once issued, its EXTREMELY hard to
get a
> patent invalidated or cause reexamination. That would be up to the alleged
> infringer to prove in a court of law, however, meanwhile, an injunction is
> filed, you can't ship product, and your legal fees skyrocket. You may get
it
> overturned, however, again, at expense of the alleged infringers $$$$$$.
> Sometimes it may come down to cross-licensing terms, or whoever has the
> largest legal budget.
>

Not necessarily true, even some of the time, and definately not the case in
the instant example.

Just out of curiosoty, how many times were you involved in all of the above,
or any of it for that matter.

The bottom line is that a Patent is only as good as it's ability to
withstand the challenge of Prior Art. Period. Ask your Patent Attorney.

This is specifically what I was speaking about when I made the statement you
replied to, and the point being, that it would be pretty easy to invalidate
the Patent in question (still looking for a link to it), because there are
quite probably many examples of such use of capacitors, long before Apple
came into existance. I can think not only of the areas of RF, specifically
Radios, but also Military Digital Electronics. All long before the Woz even
began to think about the Apple I.

I actually believe that we may have done this very thing on some of the
Electronics that I was "packaging" back in the mid seventies, well before
Altair (just sold one, but still have 2 left), not to mention Apple.

Now that you've got me thinking, I think that I will go pull all the boards
in my Intel Intellec 8 Mod 80, and possibly I may even pull the boards in my
old Watkins Johnson Spie Radios.

>     Simple has nothing to do with anything. "The first to reduce to
> practise" is the key term in the US.

Absolutely not so!  First to concieve, provably, and to exercise due
diligence  . . .

>
>     Now to make things more interesting. The EPO, European Patent office,
> rules on FIRST TO FILE, not first to reduce to practise.
>

European Patent Law is a whole different can of worms.

>     At any rate. Patent defense, as well as potential litigation thereof,
is
> just a lot of $$$$$$$ going to legal firms.
>

Actually, interms of using this "Patented" feature (still looking for a
link), if you have an example of Prior Art, don't worry about a thing, since
all you have to do if Apple were to come after you would be to produce the
Prior Art.

And this is just what I was speaking of in my statement below, where there
is such a monumentally large chance of establishing Prior Art in the field.
That is why I say that Apple would not like to try and defend it. They would
rather probably let the Patent stand as is, just to scare people off.

There is yet one other way to defend against the Claims of any Patent, and
that is simply this: If the object of the Patent is obvious to anyone
familiar to the field, that in and of itself is defense to the the claim of
Infringement, and the Claims of the Patent. In other words, if it is
obvious, it is not worthy of a Patent in the first place.

>     KWE
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On
> Behalf Of JaMi Smith
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:03 AM
> To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: JaMi Smith
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: [SPAM] Re: Question about split gnd planes
>
> You will probably find that Apple would not want to try and defend many of
> their patents, just on the grounds that they would not pass the "prior
art"
> test.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <esayre@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <joel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <manickavelu_m@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <istvan.novak@xxxxxxxxxxx>; "Ed Troy"
> <etroy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <weirsi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:19 AM
> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: [SPAM] Re: Question about split gnd planes
>
>
> > All:
> >
> > Please look into the patent apple claims to own for caps across split
> > planes.  I haven't read anywhere that apple patent attorney's have said
> > its OK to violate their patent.
> >
> > This is just another examp-le of poor review of patents and the abuse of
> > simp0le but effective fixes that should be available to all.  I am sure
> > there is prior art which would make this patent unenforcable.
> >
> > ed
> > ==========
> > Dr. Edward P. Sayre, P. E.
> > North East Systems Associates, Inc.
> > 1 South Avenue, 3rd Floor
> > Natick, MA  01760
> > [T] 508-652-0088
> > [F] 508-652-0083
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
> List FAQ wiki page is located at:
>                 http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ
>
> List technical documents are available at:
>                 http://www.si-list.org
>
> List archives are viewable at:
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> or at our remote archives:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>   http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field

or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list

For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field

List FAQ wiki page is located at:
                http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ

List technical documents are available at:
                http://www.si-list.org

List archives are viewable at:     
                http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
                http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu