Ledzius,

Greate to have you join the discussion. By earning the inventor ship, you certainly have respect from us.

While I was reading your patent titled “Self-compensating, maximum speed integrated circuit”, US patent number 4,691,124 and other patents brought by PUBPAT reexamination request, I had some questions in my mind that still puzzles me at this moment. For example, in my message to Wolf, I had the following quote from Ledzius patent (4,691,124 ) and comment #4 -

===============

124 spec 6:10 -

Additionally, a clock select signal applied from the processor at node 30 controls operation of multiplexer 60 to supply either clock signal 58' or an externally supplied clock signal to clock output node 36. The externally supplied clock, which is applied at node 32, may advantageously represent a synchronous clock for operating functional circuit 16 (see FIG. 1) in a test mode or other mode which defeats asynchronous, true maximum speed operation.

Comment #4 – Here comes limitations again. The 124 disclosure “may advantageously” “ for operating functional circuit in a test mode or other mode which defeats asynchronous, true maximum speed operation.” First, the inventor may not sure how this can be achieved, or else we should be able to find detailed description or diagram to get a complete picture of it, if we use Moore and Fish's 336 17:11-50 above as a comparison. Second, even if 124 inventor can show how it works, it is only good “ in a test mode or other mode which defeats asynchronous, true maximum speed operation”. One have to ask, are modern microprocessor systems made since publication of 366 application can only operate “in a test mode or other mode which defeats asynchronous, true maximum speed operation”? PUBPAT clearly see the deficiency of using 124 to attacking 366, so it uses following to it makeup. Let see how good it does the job -

Since you are the inventor, there is no other person can anwser my doubts better than you. Here are my questions -

1. I looked your patent again trying to find what the "externally supplied clock" is and still cannot find it. Whereas the 336 patent disclosed specifically that the clock is " a conventional crystal clock 434" for controlling " I/O interface 432". Here is the the quote from 336 patent -

"This synchronization is performed by the I/O interface 432, speed of which is controlled by a conventional crystal clock 434."

Could you help to supply the information so I can understand.

2. "The externally supplied clock, which is applied at node 32, may advantageously represent a synchronous clock for operating functional circuit 16 ", (to me, the functional circuit 16 of 124 patent is a much simplified "CPU" in comparison to CPU disclosed by 366 patent) Whereas the second clock of 336 is not for clocking CPU but for clocking the I/O interface. Do you agree with PUBPAT request that uses your discosure to attack clocking scheme of 336 patent? If you do, can you present your arguments to confirm that your disclosure was the prior art of 336? Or present your arguments on how one of ordinary skill before May 16, 1986 could design, disclose and make the 336 invention?

3. UBPAT request also cited other inventions and products as prior arts of 336. One of the patents mentioned is US patent number 4,660,155 to Thaden, et al. (“Thaden”), entitled “Single Chip Video System With Separate Clocks For Memory Controller, CRT Controller”. Do you consider 155 patent is prior art to 124 patent and why. To me, if arguments of PUPPAT request are valid, then claims of 124 (your patent) should also be disallowed. Or, if you can find good reason to say 155 patent is not prior art of 124 patent, how about 155 related patents (filed two years earlier than yours) and other PUBPAT referenced patents and products/handbooks existed before the filing date of your patent?

Here is the related patents of 155

"Related U.S. patent applications are: application Ser. No. 633,385 entitled "Video System Controller with a Row Address Override Circuit" by Jeffrey C. Bond and Robert C. Thaden, application Ser. No. 633,386 entitled "Video Memory Controller" by Robert C. Thaden, Jeffrey C. Bond, James C. Moravec, Karl M. Guttag, Raymond Pinkham and Mark Novak, application Ser. No. 633,367 entitled "State Machine Standard Cell" by Robert C. Thaden and Mark W. Watts, application Ser. No. 633,389 entitled "X Y Addressing" by Karl M. Guttag, Jerry Van Aken, Jeffrey C. Bond, Rudy Albachten and Mark Novak, application Ser. No. 633,383 entitled "Video System with Single Memory Space for Instructions, Program Data and Display Data" by Karl M. Guttag, Raymond Pinkham and Mark Novak, application Ser. No. 633,388 entitled "Single Chip Video System with Separate Clocks for Memory Controller and CRT Controller" by Robert C. Thaden and Jeffrey C. Bond and application Ser. No. 633,387 entitled "Video Memory Controller Support Storage of Data From an External Source" by Jeffrey C. Bond and Robert C. Thaden. "

4. Your patent had a title “Self-compensating, maximum speed integrated circuit”, whereas in the claim 1 and claim 3 of your patent you have “slowest signal” (claim 1) and “equal to one-half of the propagation delay of the slowest signal path of the functional circuit” (claim 3). Compare to 336 patent, which one can achieve maximum speed ?

5. Can you educate us the difference in speed between using UART device as a clocking source and using a crystal clock as a clocking source? To ordinary guys on the street, is that the difference between using a 4800 baud modem to go Internet and using a broadband connections? Why is that you did not include a crystal clock to define the undefined “externally supplied clock" in your disclosure? Is that something too obvious to disclose?

6. If you have time, could you gave us your view of MMP patents? What are the chances of J2/ARM not only win the PTO examinations, but win the Texas case? Is that true that a reading of one claim is enough to win the infringement case? I know it take some time to answer questions like these. If you do not like to speculate the end result of case, just ignor the question.

I gave up my my normal life tonight to write this reply. Still have more questions than answers. My thinking is that in order to beat previous PTO examiner and convince the new PTO examiner/expert EE witnesses during the reexamination processes, you may need to convince people like me first. So far, I'm sorry to say that I'm not convinced.

Have a nice day.

-------- Patent Info ------------

124

Appl. No.: 06/863,915

Filed: May 16, 1986

United States Patent 4,691,124

Ledzius , et al. September 1, 1987

115

Appl. No.: 06/633,388

Filed: July 23, 1984

United States Patent 4,660,155

Thaden , et al. April 21, 1987

-------- Patent Info ------------