[time-nuts] Patents was: Re: Phase Noise of 74AC gates
Lux, Jim (337C)
james.p.lux at jpl.nasa.gov
Sat Feb 20 14:59:35 UTC 2010
On 2/19/10 8:49 PM, "Rick Karlquist" <richard at karlquist.com> wrote:
> Bruce Griffiths wrote:
>> He's made similar comments before.
>> It actually isnt that difficult to achieve an isolation amplifier phase
>> noise floor below -170dBc/Hz if one is careful to use appropriate parts,
>> design techniques, and the input signal level is high enough.
>> The real problem is verifying that performance.
> The 10811 production engineers searched for a long time for
> a low noise buffer amplifier and settled on the ANZAC AMC-123.
> The data sheet refers to a patent that reads like
> a construction article. You can make your own if you can find
> an old 2N5109 transistor.
I love those kinds of patents! A friend's patent attorney was telling me
that one way to help your patent app glide through is to write it that way.
The examiners love to see practical details and test data.
Much better to say "a preferred embodiment uses a 1/4"-20 bolt 3" long
tightened to 50 inch pounds" rather than "a preferred embodiment uses a
threaded fastener". Save the generic "fastener" for the claims.
His comment was that once the patent issues, nobody can duplicate (legally)
what you describe in your disclosure (assuming the claims were written to
cover it), so why be coy and vague. He also said that a good disclosure
makes your patent more likely to be cited by others as prior art, and hence,
less likely to have those subsequent patents have claims that overlap yours.
Now, I will confess that I have met other patent attorneys who like vague
and coy, because that confuses people reading it, and you might be able to
negotiate a better deal in a cross-licensing sort of situation. Naturally,
of course, those attorneys assume you'll be hiring THEM to do that
More information about the time-nuts