"The SCI-B publication, which Rambus selectively omitted from any IDS submitted to the U.S. PTO, contains a much more detailed explanation of dual edge clocking, specifically instructing “the frequency of this clock must be 250 or 500 Mhz dependent on how we use the edges. (One or both for changing data.)” and includes figures and timing diagrams. Han Decl., Exh. Q at pp. 1-3. This disclosure is also a specific and unambiguous suggestion that the two alternatives were considered to be interchangeable, a key issue in determining whether it would have been obvious to use dual edge clocking rather than the single edge clocking schemes that were generally in use at that time. Further, SCI-C simply discloses the use of a PLL, while SCI-B describes the problems addressed by the use of a DLL and provides a detailed description of how to implement this solution along with a detailed figure showing the clocks, variable delay lines, and feedback loop. See Yang Decl., Exh. 15 at p. 2, column 2 (“easy to use phase locked loops for data extraction if desired”) compare Han Decl., Exh. Q at pp. 3-4 (“A method to solve this problem is to design a phase lock loop” and including a “proposal for a digital PLL”). As such, the SCI-B reference teaches a specific reason to use a DLL that is not disclosed in any of the other SCI publications cited during prosecution. These teachings of SCI-B are relevant to the elected patents for trial that include claims requiring dual edge clocking (e.g., claim 8 of the ‘037 patent) and/or a DLL (e.g., claim 10 of the ‘696 patent). Yang Decl., Exhs. 9 (‘037 patent) and 10 (‘696 patent); see also Yang Decl., Exh. 1 (claim 22 of the ‘184 patent recites a “delay locked loop circuit”); Exh. 3 (claim 37 of the ‘051 patent recites “a delay lock loop circuit”); Exh. 4 (claim 38 of the ‘120 patent recites “delay lock loop circuitry”); Exh. 5 (claim 3 of the ‘8,020 patent requiring dual edge clocking and “a clock alignment circuit”); Exh. 6 (claim 40 of the ‘916 patent reciting “delay lock loop circuitry”); Exh. 7 (claim 21 of the ‘863 patent reciting a “delay locked loop”); Exh. 8 (claim 40 of the ‘6,446 patent requiring dual edge clocking and “a delay locked loop”); Exh. 10 (claim 53 of the ‘696 patent requiring dual edge clocking and a “delay lock loop”). As demonstrated by Rambus’s own decisions during the prosecution of the ‘120, ‘8,020, ‘916,"
"Rambus did not disclose all of the SCI publications to the U.S. PTO even though Dr. Farmwald and Dr. Horowitz were on the SCI mailing list and receiving all of the SCI publications beginning in at least November 1988."
The tip of the iceberg of what remains "undisclosed" in the RamBus claim prosecutions.
Well that is just so funny! I can't lose my shirt as I shorted this at much higher levels. So I guess I could say that I have a lot of your money plus much more. You are the one that rode this pos up to $135 and then back down to below your cost. You say you have your reasons for buying or selling this stock. The problem is that you never sold!
I have my reasons for buying or selling this stock, none of which have anything to do with the merits of whether Rambus is or is not a good security to own today.
I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy Rambus. What I am trying to do is counter the lies and rediculous things people like you come to this board to say.
Why would anyone listen to me? Because I state facts and follow the AT case very closely. You on the other hand can't tell the difference between a legal and illegal monopoly. You confuse the patent cases with the AT. And you have a preconceived bias against Rambus because someone told you that Rambus did something wrong, instead of reading the documents for yourself. People don't have to listen to me, but they sure shouldn't listen to you.
You will lose your shirt XQ, and it won't bother me a bit when you do. Mid to late September when the jury issues the AT decision, then you will be gone.
Technical name for one who posts obfuscatory and irrelevant information at a chat room regarding Rambus, when it is readily apparent that the individual has a severe anti-Rambus obsession and a Mark Horowitz wannabe syndrome.
The patents have all been through the ringer many times, and mostly all have survived. The AT is not a patent matter, it is about the conduct of the cartel, which wasn't too good. The jury members need to get back to work. Look for a very fast, very pro-Rambus jury decision.