"I would challenge this one in court because it is obvious to someone skilled in the art, i.e ME!" -- Keep in mind that it had to be obvious at the time it was filed, in 1993. I'm not so well versed in the history of chip development to know if that would be the case, but if it wasn't obvious then, and for whatever reason it seems obvious now, then that would be pretty good evidence that these guys came up with a great idea (at that time) that everyone is now making use of without compensating the inventor.
Actually, you CAN patent a mere idea. Patents require a "reduction to practice." That reduction to practice can be either actual (where you actually make something) or constructive (where all you do is explain how it's done, usually in the patent itself), so you don't actually have to make something to get a patent.
More interestingly with regard to the discussion above, I'd like to point out that the 4Mhz limitation is found in dependant claim 4, which depends from claim 1 (that's why it says "A combination as defined in claim 1..."). When doing an infringement analysis, you look first at the independent claims (here, claim 1), which "stand by themselves" so to speak and you look to see if each and every element of the claim is present in the allegedly infringing device. If that is the case, claim 1 is infringed and that's the end of the story. The purpose of the dependent claims is to "protect" the independent claims from challenges to their validity. So if someone came along and could prove that everything in claim 1 had already been done, the patent holder can turn to the dependant claims, which hopefully include an additional novel feature, and try to assert those dependent claims and their additional features against an infringer. Of course the infringer would also have to infringe the dependant claims.
One other aspect of the 4Mhz limitation is that it provides "claim differentiation" and arguably broadens the scope of claim 1. Basically, because the 4Mhz limitation is NOT in the independent claim, and it is found later in a dependent claim, it suggests that the independent claim covers 4Mhz as well as 33Mhz, or 66Mhz, or what have you.
To make things even more clear, independant claim 1 includes "means plus function" language, which really makes figuring out what it means a PITA. The patent office doesn't allow you to just say "means... for generating" and get coverage on every single thing under the sun that could ever generate anything. What you have to do with a "means" clause is look to the detailed description portion of the patent and find the structure that performs the specified function, here "generating." The patent then covers the structure disclosed and substantial equivalents thereof... I won't get into what constitutes a substantial equivalent, as I've wasted enough time on this already.
Slashdot Mirror
"I would challenge this one in court because it is obvious to someone skilled in the art, i.e ME!" -- Keep in mind that it had to be obvious at the time it was filed, in 1993. I'm not so well versed in the history of chip development to know if that would be the case, but if it wasn't obvious then, and for whatever reason it seems obvious now, then that would be pretty good evidence that these guys came up with a great idea (at that time) that everyone is now making use of without compensating the inventor.
Actually, you CAN patent a mere idea. Patents require a "reduction to practice." That reduction to practice can be either actual (where you actually make something) or constructive (where all you do is explain how it's done, usually in the patent itself), so you don't actually have to make something to get a patent. More interestingly with regard to the discussion above, I'd like to point out that the 4Mhz limitation is found in dependant claim 4, which depends from claim 1 (that's why it says "A combination as defined in claim 1..."). When doing an infringement analysis, you look first at the independent claims (here, claim 1), which "stand by themselves" so to speak and you look to see if each and every element of the claim is present in the allegedly infringing device. If that is the case, claim 1 is infringed and that's the end of the story. The purpose of the dependent claims is to "protect" the independent claims from challenges to their validity. So if someone came along and could prove that everything in claim 1 had already been done, the patent holder can turn to the dependant claims, which hopefully include an additional novel feature, and try to assert those dependent claims and their additional features against an infringer. Of course the infringer would also have to infringe the dependant claims. One other aspect of the 4Mhz limitation is that it provides "claim differentiation" and arguably broadens the scope of claim 1. Basically, because the 4Mhz limitation is NOT in the independent claim, and it is found later in a dependent claim, it suggests that the independent claim covers 4Mhz as well as 33Mhz, or 66Mhz, or what have you. To make things even more clear, independant claim 1 includes "means plus function" language, which really makes figuring out what it means a PITA. The patent office doesn't allow you to just say "means... for generating" and get coverage on every single thing under the sun that could ever generate anything. What you have to do with a "means" clause is look to the detailed description portion of the patent and find the structure that performs the specified function, here "generating." The patent then covers the structure disclosed and substantial equivalents thereof... I won't get into what constitutes a substantial equivalent, as I've wasted enough time on this already.