% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Patriot Scientific Corporation Message Board

  • jackjumper234323 jackjumper234323 May 23, 2013 1:22 PM Flag

    PLL based microprocessors DO NOT INFRINGE the MMP here I explain why:

    PLL (phased locked loop) microprocessors are how all modern day microprocessors are run. They use an off chip crystal (a PLL circuit) to send a signal to the on chip ring oscillator that then clocks the microprocessor. The ITC judges SPECIFIC CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION of the 336 patent says if ANY off chip crystal is used then there is no infringement.

    Basically the accused infringers have circumvented the independent patent claims of the 336 and produced similar results in regards to the variable maximum speed of the processor and the energy saving use that goes with a 336 variable speed clocking device as well as the safety factor that doesn't allow the frequency clocking device to over run the speed of the processors capabilities under varying environmental conditions. How did they do it..well the accused infringers use a ring oscillator to control another gadget that creates a varying frequency to run the processor. This gadget (PLL circuit) would NOT BE located on the processor substrate but would be controlled by the ring oscillator that IS located on the processor substrate. They may have used a smith trigger oscillator in the ring oscillator just to complicate the situation . I think this is what ARM did to get around our patent and why there were declared to be not infringing on the MMP by PTSC/TPL in 2007.

    Its over folks I am just trying to be a good friend and help you folks out with my knowledge of microprocessors and my distaste for that fukhead m2shomaker who is stuck in this stock with a ton of shares he cannot unload unless he can con you into buying.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • I can only help you if you help yourselves by reading this info and doing 10 minutes of searching. Dont just trust "m2shomaker" and waste thousands of dollars without checking!

    • This is why you got a bad markman ruling and how the ITC staff lawyers came to the conclusion that there is NO INFRINGEMEN! You can look it up at the US ITC folks! Do your homework and dont get conned by "m2shomaker".

    • This is the crux of the case and why the ITCs own staff lawyers told the judge after hearing all the facts at the trial that there is NO INFRINGEMENT! Whatever you do do not buy any stock until the likely loss on Sept 6. Much cheaper then in my opinion.

    • why is it not crashing over seas? bod should do jail time!

      • 1 Reply to vvvvv562000
      • I said it is the "staff lawyers" post hearing ITC brief not the final judges ruling. It is a very well reasoned opinion I believe the judge should accept. You are too dumb to invest in this stock if you cannot at least go to the source of the info and read it yourself. You can register at the ITC website for free and read it all there fool.

    • More facts from you friend Jack! They are from the post hearing ITC lawyers brief filed yesterday!! This bit is where your expert agrees with the accused infringers argument!

      Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the '336 patent refers to a clock based on an external crystal to
      be fixed-speed:
      Q. Okay. Well, we know that the I/O interface is operated at a
      fixed speed; correct?
      A. The I/O interface operates at the speed which is relatively
      fixed, right, because it's using the crystal to stabilize this frequency,
      and therefore it is fixed. As I explained in my also presentation, it has
      to be fixed not to confuse the I/O.
      Tr. (Oklobdzija) 796:24-797:7. Under Dr. Oklobdzija’s reasoning, the alleged oscillators/clocks
      are similarly fixed because their frequency is stabilized by a PLL using an external crystal/clock
      generator. Tr. (Subramanian) at 1212:17-1214:1. Nonetheless, Complainants argue that a fixed-
      speed clock still varies as a result of PVT because the PLLs “do not completely eliminate
      variations.” Comp. Br. at 34. But construing the “varying” limitations to cover fixed-speed
      clocks would be contrary to the plain and ordinary meaning, and contrary to the disclosure of the
      '336 patent.
      JXM-0001, '336 patent, at col. 17:32-34; Tr. (Oklobdzija) at 797:19-798:5.

    • I can relate to you peeps. I know you have doubts about PTSC and many of you simply got spammed by paid promotions or conned into here by paid pumpers like "m2shomaker" with their seemingly convincing messages that said things like "buy PTSC you will be rich!". I am here to help you out folks out of the goodness of my heart with my knowledge of the law and electronics. Please simply sell and walk away while you still can. I am only try'in to help u.

    • My only desire is 2 help u peeps avoid getting taken by all these PTSC pumpers! Please my friends sell ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is exactly what the ITC staff lawyers zeroed in on and why they said THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT in this case. Its over guys. If you sell you may be able to stick that paid pumper "m2shomaker" with your shares!

    • Obama will veto any ITC win fools. He as said as much!

    • Please do a search on "PLL Circuit on Google and then click on the "images" options. You will see pictures of what a PLL circuit" looks like. The circuit includes AN OFF CHIP CRYSTAL that acts as a timing reference for the PLL which is run made up of a ring oscillator. This means the ITC Judges Markman ruling 336 patent "ENTIRE" limitation which is that ALL INFLUENCES OF THE RING OSCILLATOR MUST BE ON THE CHIP comes into play. Folks the facts bear me out that you have a bad case. Please, my friends, sell as soon as you can times running out!

    • Read this peeps! Try'in 2 help you all!

    • View More Messages
0.0387-0.0013(-3.25%)Apr 27 3:53 PMEDT