The word we got was that Sony did know about us and they don't believe it is possible. I have the .8 micro process running at 500mips with 650ps pulse widths etc. Engineers will tell you that this is not possible. Conventional engineering says the limit is ten times lower than this and that these numbers are just not possible, but there is the chip.

http://www.ultratechnology.com/fsc96.html

Also(newly posted, I believe): 

KSR vs Teleflex is turning out to be a surprisingly powerful tool for helping patent practitioners persuasively argue that their clients’ inventions are not obvious.  Recent decisions by the USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI or Board) can be used as templates for constructing these arguments.  It turns out that the Board is citing KSR just as often when it reverses an examiner as when it affirms an examiner.  Apparently, the more flexible approach of KSR cuts both ways.

There has been a tremendous concern among many in the patent bar over the implications of the recent US Supreme Court decision, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc.  With the Court using language like “expansive and flexible approach to the obviousness question”, “Rigid preventative rules that deny recourse to common sense are neither necessary under, nor consistent with, this Court’s case law”, and “the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws.”, KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) it seemed to many that the future of patents looked grim. These misgivings were only amplified when shortly after KSR, the CAFC rendered its Leapfrog decision stating, “Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 06-1402 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Fortunately, the recent decisions of the BPAI provide useful guidance on how effectively argue for the non-obviousness of a given invention in light of KSR.  The decisions are available at www.uspto.gov/go/dcom/bpai. They can also be text searched through Google using the search string “site:www.uspto.gov/go/dcom/bpai” plus a key word or phrase, such as “common sense”.  With about 150 decisions per month being handed down by the BPAI directly related obviousness rejections, and with about 60% of these decisions citing KSR, there is ample material to see what sort of arguments are persuasive and what ones are not.

The Board has largely maintained its historical rate of reversals on obviousness rejections despite KSR.  In the two months (March, April 07) immediately prior to KSR, for example, the Board found in favor of at least one claim of the applicant (i.e. examiner “reversed” or “affirmed in part”) 34% of the time.  In the two months (May, June 07) immediately after KSR, that number dropped somewhat to 28% of the time.  The sky may have dropped down a notch or two, but it certainly hasn’t fallen.  Remember also, these post KSR decisions are being made on pre KSR arguments.  There is about a one year backlog at the Board.  These statistics could change, therefore, as both practitioners and examiners adapt their arguments to KSR requirements.

The Board seems to be using KSR citations in its reversals primarily to emphasize the necessity for an examiner to first make a proper prima facie case of obviousness before rejecting a claim.  75% of the reversals were based on either failure of the prior art to disclose an element of a claim or failure of the examiner to articulate an adequate rationale for combining the prior art to attain the claimed invention.  Some representative language used by the Board is:

1. “There is no evidence or suggestion in _____ of such a configuration” Ex Parte Katoh et al, Appeal 20071460, Decided May 29, 2007
2. “Further, the Examiner has not provided any evidence that it was conventional in the art to_____” Ex Parte Owlett, Appeal 20070644, Decided June 20, 2007
3. “We determine that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient reason or explicit analysis of why the disclosures of the references should be combined.” Ex Parte Erkey et al, Appeal 20071375, Decided May 11, 2007
4. “We find no suggestion to combine the teachings and suggestions of ___ and ___, as advanced by the Examiner, except from using Appellants’ invention as a template through a hindsight reconstruction of Appellants’ claims.” Ex Parte Crawford et al, Appeal 20062429, Decided May 30, 2007

The Board is repeatedly citing KSR as it, in turn, cited In re Kahn.

“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” (In re Kahn, 441 F. 3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006) cited with approval in KSR)

This citation should be a powerful tool for practitioners and valuable guidance for examiners.

Effectively rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness, however, is still hard.  The Board has used KSR in a few cases to point out that the common sense of one of ordinary skill in the art can be used to make an effective rebuttal.  Two cases that have used KSR in this manner are Ex Parte Rinkevich et al. and Ex Parte Green.   The representative language from these cases includes:

1. “In the instant case, we conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art having common sense at the time of the invention would not have reasonably looked to _____ to solve a problem already solved by _____.” Ex Parte Rinkevich et al, Appeal 20071317, decided May 29, 2007
2. “Therefore, we conclude that an artisan having common sense at the time of the invention would not have reasonably considered embedding a ___________ within an existing _________ in the manner suggested by the Examiner.” Ex Parte Green, Appeal 20071271, decided June 12, 2007

The Board cites KSR in these decisions as follows:

“[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of argument reliant upon ex post reasoning.”

and

 “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor consistent with it.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.

Despite these decisions, however, it still remains to be seen whether or not arguments related to the common sense of a person of ordinary skill in the art will become important tools for overcoming prima facie cases of obviousness. 

The KSR versus Teleflex decision has been a wakeup call to many patent practitioners.  The USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is citing KSR in close to 60% of its obviousness decisions.  The overall reversal rate, however, has dropped only a little.  The Board is citing KSR in its reversals to emphasize that a proper case for prima facie obviousness must include motivations to combine that are “articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning”.  Unsupported assertions are not adequate.  The Board is also citing KSR to rebut prima facie cases of obviousness where “common sense” dictates that the claimed invention was not obvious.  This is a new consideration that both examiners and practitioners will have to incorporate into their practices.

http://www.iptoday.com/articles/2007-09-nowotarski.asp

Don't forgot the USPTO Guidelines on KSR, as well.

Now, can we let it go, please?

Be well