Trial notes 4/10/06 Part 3
Furness last topic was to see if the elements of the invention are supported in the spec (patent).
1. Access Time Register. The most humor came during this discussion. I believe Furness talks about a prior art patent which contained a device ID register, and asks even though it’s not in a claim, is that a invention? Murphy: It could be. Whyte then responds to something to the effect that this could become trouble for him. He was joking, and the court room filed with laugher.
2. Bus. F: Isn’t that THE invention? He reads passages of the patent where the narrow bus is highlighted. M: No not always. It’s only the preferred embodiment.
F: Discusses multiple bus lines vs. multiplexed bus lines. The typical bus has separate control info, address info and data path. Rambus has polarity of bus lines carrying all info (cntr, addr, and data).
M: It’s the preferred embodiment.
F: What’s the teaching of the patent?
M: New bus and other features combined with bus. Inventions allows high bandwidth while keeping bus relatively small. Person skilled in the art understands when to multiplex or not per system requirements.
F: Rambus didn’t invent synchronous memory?
M: It’s a key feature.
F: Dual edge clocking, what’s new?
M: A combination of features that increases BW.
F: Pipeline increases performance.
M: Signal has to go through more elements. [M answers were very short. He could have done a better job explaining.]
F: Do Hynix parts go faster with R inventions?
M: They could if done right.
Lastly, F. talks about the prior art references listed in the patents. There are some 350 collective references. Each of these references needs to be checked against each claim in all patents. F. is suggesting there’s room for error. M: That’s the examiners job.
