Anyone wonders that if the "The system is working just fine", why there are 4 bills in congress in a span of 10 years to change the US patent law so big guys can have a freer ride in expense of small guys; why the so called "reform" efforts never stop after repeated blockage? I think you say this half hearted since if the system was working just fine, why there are repeated reform act. After creating so much noices (patent troll as one of them) were created by those "acts" that effectively changed the landscape of patent system, now you say "The system is working just fine". You can fool yourself but not us.

"Yeah, like you guys think you deserve special attention." Actually, it has been you guys paid special attention to us (336, MMP), otherwise why there were so many reexamination attempts, so many protracted court cases. I wonder is there any patent that can beat 336 in terms that # of reexams endured, # court cases, # high caliber signees, # of notices given to potencial infreingers, # and value of products suspected to infringe? The saying that 336 to modern cpu is like water to the life is a reflection of how special it is. Your saying and posting is also a proof how special it is. If 336 is somehow defeated in the court house, it would be a tragedy to anyone who has a interest in PTSC finacially, it would be a tragedy precedence for the patent system as a whole later on. Just think how much is already spend by accused infringers collectively? I guess 336 can qualify for many guinness book records based on some of above #s as criterias. That's why we have been "deserve special attention" and rightly so.

"Yeah, like you guys think you deserve special attention."

A few years ago, there was a poster on this board named thepatentlawyer who repeatedly post messages to discredit our patents and efforts to preserve their value. Here comes again someone like him. But just the remember, the proposed patent reform act to deprive little guys' right in the inventor pool is not becoming a law yet -

Patent Reform Act

Here is a list of people who determine the fate of this case -

336 inventors and their lawyers

Lawyer of all companies who have been accused to infringe 336

USPTO examinners who handle the 336 patent before the granting it a US patent

Judge Ward (Texas)

USPTO examinners who handle those numerous reexamination efforts brought by infringers/their freinds

ITC judges

Current judge who handle the HTC case and current claim construction

Juries of HTC case

Reside judge who can either accept or reject current claim construction recommendation

Appellate judges may hear our appeal

Except the last two who have not made any inpact on 336 claim constrction (or what the final outcome will be based on the CC), all had a voice (directly or indirectly) on what 336 tems mean. It is worth to point out that the examiner who tried to use the Sheet and Maggar patents to limit the scope of 336, and examiners who handle the reexaminations, all knew those quotes from extrinsic records the current judge used in my previous post, still, no extra strings was attached. What our side proposed construction is the same text of claim text in the 336 ("An [oscillator] that is located entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the [central processing unit]. "

If we arrange the "entire" interprations from left and right in terms of additional strings attached, it looks like -

336 claim text - reexaminations - judge Word - HTC juries - HTC judge - current judge (same as HTC judge) - defendent lawyers of current case - 336 reexamination requests

Since current judge gave very similar construction as given by defendent lawyers, the power is shifted extremely to the right. Since the current judge handled the 336 case before and changed his construction further to the right from HTC case, if he is the one to deside this case, one can imagine what the outcome will be. Remember that we won the HTC case becuase juries did not religiously follow his CC and jury instruction, which shifted the power to the left somewhat (we were still took a big hit in damage reward as the result.)

Our laywers certainly knew this picture of power struggle, otherwise the PTSC PR won't came out during stock trading hours, and apposing the judge openly: "Patriot believes the report and recommendation, which are inconsistent with the claims construction issued by the same court in which a jury previously found infringement of the '336 patent against HTC Corporation, is in error.", and also added a thread to appeal.

It is amazing to see a single judge can throw out an overwhelming accepted knowlege made by inventers, USPTO examinners, laywers/engineers of 100 plus companies who bought the right to use 336, including CPU chip designers like Intel, AMD, HP, Sony, fujitsu and others.

In my precious post that includes some analysis of CC and jury instructions of HTC case. I pointed out some weird sematic that made juries very confused. Was it an accident? There is a saying that if you do not hold the truth, you use weird sematics to argue. I sincerely hoped it was an innocent error that time, but now, do you think we have to look at it differently.

As proven many times, it is not the validity of 336 patent, not the prosecution history what shown the negotiation between PTO examiners and our lawyers to get 336 claims allowed, it is the judge who had the most influence on the outcome of our cases without a check on his power. We were lucky last time in HTC case, since the very confused juries eventually came out of the confused state of mind to give a verdict in our favor. The check and balance system in HTC case that time limited his power. Both this time around and last time in HTC case, the judge was muddy the water, leaning to the side of infringers. This time again, the judge is repeating to similar error to give a wrong claim construction on “entire oscillator” term.

There is a misconception to say that judge reversed from HTC case. No, he did not change his mind. He is still sided with other side and try to nail us down. If we revisit to HTC case; review his claim construction terms and the instructions he gave to juries, we know that it was the juries who collectively voted down his claim constructions and did not follow his jury instructions. I attended last few days of the HTC case and wrote a letter addressing to him one day before we win the HTC case. I emailed this letter to Mr. Jim O. and also passed it to Patriot BOD members who attended the trail. The letter is to analyze what were wrong with judge’s claim construction and jury instructions. Through I’m not a lawyer, not a EE (I studied one your EE then switched to get computer science degree here. I also negotiated by myself with USPTO to get two US patents allowed) so I’m a little more than a layman. Here is the letter (if you have time for a long post) -

———————————————

Dear Magistrate Judge Grewal, Oct. 2nd, 2013

My name is Gary Lou. I has been following TPL/HTC case closely since I have an interest in Patriot Scientific Corporation who is also a joined defendant of this trial. In today's jury deliberation, jurors asked you to get further assistance in understanding the meaning of word “generate”. If I read it right, they were referring “generates” in term 6 and “generate” in term 18 of jury instructions -

6. The term “oscillator . . . clocking” means “an oscillator that generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU.”

18. The term “entire oscillator” (in claims 6 and 13) is properly understood to exclude any external clock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU.

In following this case, I read many available public documents, either they are IEEE articles relate to PLL, ring oscillator, and external crystal clock, or expert testimonies regarding regarding whether or not an infringement of 366 patent had occurred by HTC phones. I tried to be on jury's shoes to arrive a convincing conclusion. I know perfectly that it is for these 9 jurors, not anyone else to determine the outcome of this trial. Nevertheless, I practice this so that when the final verdict is delivered, I'll accept it as a right one without doubt, or without being confused, regardless who is winning.

By reading the team 6 and team 18 in your instruction to jurors, I had been always confused all along during the trial. The term 18 is pretty hard to follow in the context of contentions by both side. After hearing juror's requests, I knew I was not along (I have doubt of my self since english is my second language, though I completed BS degree in computer science here.) Reading it again and again, I finally realized that why I had hard time understand this term in conjunction of claims that have this term in the wording. To my surprise, it is not related technical aspects things that kept me in confusing state; it's the semantic aspects -

First,
in term 6, we have - “generates the signal(s) used for timing the operation of the CPU” and

in term 18, we have - “used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU”
What we have in common are - “generate”(s), “the signal”(s), “used”, “the CPU”.

The differences are - “for timing the operation of the CPU” vs. “to clock the CPU”.
If these two different ones don't have the same meaning as “to clock the CPU”, it may mean -

(1) the first one means not only “to clock the CPU”, but also do other “timing operation” beside “to clock the cpu”. The existence of “signal(s)” and “signal” is also a little confusing.

(2) the first one means to do other “timing operation' other than “to clock the CPU”.

If these two means the same in context of 336 claims and in the claim construction, it should be the same so jurors will not interpret them as two different things. From a layman's point of view, if the judge write them differently, they must have different meaning, which overturns the assumption that they are the same.

Second, the big contention between TPL and HTC is in what generate signal to clock CPU, the external fixed frequency crystal oscillator, or the variable frequency ring oscillator of PLL. TPL side say that signal generate by crystal oscillator stop at phase detector; this signal is transformed to affect the voltage (or current depend on type of PLL used) to influence the frequency of ring oscillator to clock the CPU. HTC side argue that signal generate by crystal oscillator is multiplied to be used to clock the cpu (and to keep CPU frequency fixed.)

Regarding term 18: “entire oscillator” (in claims 6 and 13) is properly understood to exclude any external clock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU. “Jurors were given the task to determine which side is telling the truth. The confusing part for them, IMHO, is the term itself gave them a hint - “external clock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU”. Why this can be interpreted as a hint? Throughout the claim construction and term definition, there is no same language or same wording regarding the internal ring oscillator, some thing like “internal ring oscillator used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU”.

Now, assume some jurors understood the whole thing and had made their mind but some were not during the deliberation. For those those who still confused may try to use the semantic of this term instead rely on vast evidences provided during the trial to reach the infringement verdict. This possibility increase as the time dragged on. If I were one of the juror, I would say to myself: if the term say “external clock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU” but no other term say “internal ring oscillator used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU”, perhaps by definition, it's the external clock generate signal to clock the CPU. To eliminated my doubt, let me ask judge to clarify more about what generate means. In other words, the term itself can be interpreted as, you, as a judge, had an inclination on what component generates the signal to clock the cpu, even this interpretation is untrue in your mind.

If a juror more convinced that it is the internal ring oscillator generate signal to clock the CPU, when arguing with other jurors with different opinion, he/she may have a second thought on why the term say “to exclude any external clock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU. “ He/she may say: “ok, external clock never generate signal to clock the cpu from what I understand, but why you say - “any external clock used to generate the signal used to clock the CPU” in term 18? I also need more clarification. Since “generate” is the main word in contention, let's ask judge about what really generate means here.

I don't know is it right or wrong for me to write this, or is it right or wrong for me to give my opinion to you before jurors reach their determination. In any case, disregard it if above does not make any sense to you, or it is improper for me to write it or give it to you.

Yours truly

xxxx xxx

———————————————

After juries gave us a favarable verdict, I also talked to 5 juries in two places (briefly to one at a garage and second conversation in front of the building with 4 juries, including the lead jury second on in line for about 50 minutes. I also wrote up a summary and forward it to MR. Jim O. Many things I speculated in above letter actually happened (the merning of "generate" for example). Many juries were so confused about the language and sematic in judge's CC and jury instruction he handed to juries to guide them.

Now back to present case, from judge’s recommended construction argument -

“applicants distinguished their “present invention” from microprocessors that rely on frequency control information from an external source:

“The present invention does not similarly rely upon provision of frequency control information to an external clock, but instead contemplates providing a ring oscillator clock and the microprocessor within the same integrated circuit. The placement of these elements within the same integrated circuit obviates the need for provision of the type of frequency control information described by Sheets, since the microprocessor and clock will naturally tend to vary commensurately in speed as a function of various parameters (e.g., temperature) affecting circuit performance.

Sheets’ system for providing clock control signals to an external clock is thus seen to be unrelated to the integral microprocessor/clock system of the present invention.14”

Because the applicants referred to the “present invention” in this statement, their disclaimer applies to all claims.15

……..

The PTO nonetheless issued a second rejection based on Magar, and the applicants responded by emphasizing again that the claimed invention did not rely on an external crystal’s fixed frequency to set the clock’s frequency rate:

“The essential difference is that the frequency or rate of the . . . signals is determined by the processing and/or operating parameters of the integrated circuit containing the . . . circuit, while the frequency or rate of the . . . signals depicted in Magar . . . are determined by the fixed frequency of the external crystal.12”

The applicants also disclaimed the use of an external crystal to cause clock signal oscillation:

Magar’s clock generator relies on an external crystal connected to terminals X1 and X2 to oscillate . . . . It is not an entire oscillator in itself. And with the crystal, the clock rate generated is also conventional in that it is a fixed, not a variable, frequency. The Magar clock is comparable in operation to the conventional crystal clock 434 depicted in Fig. 17 of the present application for controlling the I/O interface at a fixed rate frequency, and not at all like the clock on which the claims are based.13”

I bold faced a few words and underlined two patents judge included from the prosecution history.

For applicant’s arguments against Sheet, two words were used by 336 inventors/their lawyers - similarly and obviates. First, “The present invention does not similarly rely upon provision of frequency control information to an external clock, but instead contemplates providing a ring oscillator clock and the microprocessor within the same integrated circuit.” What’s not similar? 1. Under sheet, the external clock and cpu are running in lockstep speed (same frequency), cpu cannot escape from the very low frequency of external clock. But using 336 patent, cpu can be clocked by RO 10 times faster (at the time of 336 got granted) or 100 time or more at present time. 2. Under Sheet, there is no internal clock that is on the same substrate with the cpu. All it has is an external clock to fix the cpu speed. Under 336 and all defendants’ products, the RO (PLL) is on the same substrate with the cpu. 3. RO (PLL) and cpu are varying together due to PVT variations under 336 and all defendants’ products so CPU will not run too fast or too slow, but under Sheet, the cpu speed is fixed by external clock, the PVT variations of cpu are non matter in cpu speed.

Second, the word obviates in

“The placement of these elements within the same integrated circuit obviates the need for provision of the type of frequency control information described by Sheets, since the microprocessor and clock will naturally tend to vary commensurately in speed as a function of various parameters (e.g., temperature) affecting circuit performance.”

means remove (a need or difficulty). Under sheet, cpu has to, need to use external clock to provide frequency control. Under 336, cpu dost not have to or need to use external crystal clock to provide clock signal. This does mean if anyone can use the 336 patent to achieve very high cpu speed and use an external clock to tightly control the cpu in a tight frequency range (at that high speed), and just by adding the external clock to provide additional frequency control information, anyone can be free from the infringe the 336 patent. In simple terms, if 336 is A (RO) and B (CPU and RO on the same substrate), defendants added C (external crystal clock) and D (PLL to enclose the RO and interface with C), it is obvious that add additional apparatus on a valid patent cannot avoid escape the claim scope of A and B. I know at this stage, we are not talking about the infringement but claim construction, but judge’s analysis and his claim construction bury a dangerous bomb here. In HTC case, the bombs were defused by juries (highly intelligent from bay area pool).

For applicant’s arguments against Maggar, “not all like” is used by 336 inventors/their lawyers to, this is easy to understand as it is similar to what we argue in case of Sheet (points 1, 2 and 3). How can the jude arrive this conclusion - “The applicants also disclaimed the use of an external crystal to cause clock signal oscillation:” All applicants said was this - “The present invention does not similarly rely upon provision of frequency control information to an external clock”. The applicants were just saying our cpu is clocked by RO that is on the same substrate of CPU, is not clocked by a clock that is external to the RO/CPU substrate and is running at the same frequency of cpu. Where did the judge find “applicants also disclaimed the use of an external crystal”? And “an external crystal to cause clock signal oscillation” is what happen in Sheet and Maggar, not in 336, not in defendants’ products (external clock signals never reach cpu, the PLL circuitry convert it to voltage variation to keep cpu speed in a tight range.) Is it very obvious that the judge was using distorted facts (statements), very out of logic way and confusing arguments to arrive his final claim construction.

I’m also alarm to see this :Because the applicants referred to the “present invention” in this statement, their disclaimer applies to all claims.: Again, the judge is not flipping from the HTC case, he is continue his course. I just hope that the jury effect (without juries this time) will somehow happen to have a check and balance of a single judge's power.

Win or lose, this case (and the struggle of 336 patent) is and will certainly be a remarkable piece of history with a time stamp of our era - big bussinesses lobbying our goverment to supress/alter the right of small inventors.

I have another question - how many of you have sold big trunc of shares after the recent verdict sending the share price to twenty-five cents, then tried to persuade others to shoot their feet?

"Is it a good time to start infighting with TPL (we are still tied with TPL by the MMP Commercial Agreement. I have not heard yet any workable plan to break that tie?)? Or start an infighting within PTSC? "

I asked above question a few days ago; anyone care to provide workable plan to break the tie with TPL/Alliance and/or replace BOD (name some candidates and explain their qualifications). Nano

If I remembered correctly, the 108 number was a divider used to get average license $ when HTC's damage expert was on the stand. So this number is from my recollection, not written on my notebook. However, there is a written one there from a Q/A by our lawyer to Mark Leckrone. When asked how many license Alliance did, his answer was 110. Brain can correct me on these two numbers.

Ok, let's not speculate on unknown #s until we read the pacer transcripts, 10q or press release. We knew not every license was announced, and I don't know the trial revealed every unannounced deal. Nano