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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • truth_in_government truth_in_government Aug 14, 2011 8:29 AM Flag


    "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.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • 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.

    • According to your post in 2009; you have held this stock from 1999. You rode this up to $135 and all the way back down to below the price you paid.

      Who would ever want to listen to someone who does not even know when to sell? And you are on this board trying to convince people to buy, based on your opinion. You really have some nerve!

      It is so easy taking money from stupid longs in a dying stock.


    • 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.

12.00-0.35(-2.83%)Feb 5 4:00 PMEST