e.Digital

Flash-R™ patent portfolio e.Digital's Flash-R™ patent portfolio contains fundamental technology essential to the utilization of flash memory in today's large and growing portable electronic products market.

Home Videos Research Press Release Q&A Discussion

Threads Posts

Security Summit April 2016

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Interesting read - Provisional Applications as Prior Art in Inter Partes Reviews

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Patent Filings Drop To 5-Year Low In 2016's First Quarter

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Nunchi Patent # 331 and Miluzzo reference

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

Re: Snippet ( 6) - Inter Parte Review - Patent owner response-DONI

e.Digital

over 8 years ago

in response to doni's message

Interesting that 12/680492 required that claims be withdrawn and new claims written. Most of new claims were directed to invention not tied to specification and hence cancelled by examiner and remaining claims were found to be anticipated.

So, in the case of Miluzzo, USPTO is using prior art that was unable to be patented and was anticipated itself. How valid can any of Miluzzo's teachings be?

Opty