Regarding DC removal filter.

On Aug 8, 11:17 am, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Clay wrote:
> >>>> said something about
> >>>> like this when he was presenting stuff, long ago at some AES thingie,
> >>>> about sigma-delta conversion and noise shaping.  i think he suggested
> >>>> that one look in those old Bell System Technical Journals from the 50s
> >>>> and 60s.  you'll almost always find that your "novel idea" was novel,
> >>>> but about 40 years ago and the novelty wasn't original to you.
> >>>> but that doesn't stop someone like IVL from patenting it.
>
> > Hello Robert, et. al.,
>
> > If the idea can be found in an old published journal (which predates
> > the patent), then the patent is effectively null and void.
> > A lot of application patents can be nullified if one does the right
> > research. A big part of a patent's being valid is its being novel and
> > not being obvious to someone skilled in the art. I don't know about
> > IVL's patents - do they have any novel content?
>
> This is the theory. The high cost of litigation, and the quirky outcome
> of presenting even simple technical concepts to a court, makes the
> reality a whole different story.
>
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree that trying to show "obvious to one skilled in the art" takes
some effort in court - but showing prior art is easy - just give the
name of the publication and the appropriate page numbers. Although a
bit of hair splitting occurs when the publication shows a general
method or technique and the application patent shows the technique
used in a particular case that the original publication didn't cover.
But then again this leads to a "skilled in the art" thing. It all
depends on how important the thing you want to use is.

Clay

Clay wrote:
> On Aug 8, 11:17 am, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Clay wrote:
>>>>>> said something about
>>>>>> like this when he was presenting stuff, long ago at some AES thingie,
>>>>>> about sigma-delta conversion and noise shaping.  i think he suggested
>>>>>> that one look in those old Bell System Technical Journals from the 50s
>>>>>> and 60s.  you'll almost always find that your "novel idea" was novel,
>>>>>> but about 40 years ago and the novelty wasn't original to you.
>>>>>> but that doesn't stop someone like IVL from patenting it.
>>> Hello Robert, et. al.,
>>> If the idea can be found in an old published journal (which predates
>>> the patent), then the patent is effectively null and void.
>>> A lot of application patents can be nullified if one does the right
>>> research. A big part of a patent's being valid is its being novel and
>>> not being obvious to someone skilled in the art. I don't know about
>>> IVL's patents - do they have any novel content?
>> This is the theory. The high cost of litigation, and the quirky outcome
>> of presenting even simple technical concepts to a court, makes the
>> reality a whole different story.
>>
>> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> I agree that trying to show "obvious to one skilled in the art" takes
> some effort in court - but showing prior art is easy - just give the
> name of the publication and the appropriate page numbers. Although a
> bit of hair splitting occurs when the publication shows a general
> method or technique and the application patent shows the technique
> used in a particular case that the original publication didn't cover.
> But then again this leads to a "skilled in the art" thing. It all
> depends on how important the thing you want to use is.

That seems awfully naive. The whole purpose of a lawyer's life is to 
split hairs, and the most subtle difference between the referenced 
material and what is being claimed can discount the prior art. Remember, 
that doing some well known applied to a new goal is patentable. "A 
resistor charging a capacitor" was a court proven solid patented 
technique for the ultra low power oscillator timing circuit in heart 
pacemakers. It was a road block in that industry, until it expired.

Steve

Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> writes:

> That seems awfully naive. The whole purpose of a lawyer's life is to
> split hairs, and the most subtle difference between the referenced
> material and what is being claimed can discount the prior
> art. Remember, that doing some well known applied to a new goal is
> patentable. "A resistor charging a capacitor" was a court proven solid
> patented technique for the ultra low power oscillator timing circuit
> in heart pacemakers. It was a road block in that industry, until it
> expired.

That's damn-near the electronic equivalent of addition. 
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "Midnight, on the water... 
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %  I saw...  the ocean's daughter." 
%%% 919-577-9882                % 'Can't Get It Out Of My Head' 
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % *El Dorado*, Electric Light Orchestra
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

On Aug 8, 7:00 pm, Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> wrote:
> Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> writes:
> > That seems awfully naive. The whole purpose of a lawyer's life is to
> > split hairs, and the most subtle difference between the referenced
> > material and what is being claimed can discount the prior
> > art. Remember, that doing some well known applied to a new goal is
> > patentable. "A resistor charging a capacitor"

i didn't know that resistors could charge anything.  where is the
energy source inside the resistor that can move charges around?

> >  was a court proven solid
> > patented technique for the ultra low power oscillator timing circuit
> > in heart pacemakers. It was a road block in that industry, until it
> > expired.
>
> That's damn-near the electronic equivalent of addition.

it *is* the electronic equivalent to integration w.r.t. time.  and
integration definitely has something to do with addition.

r b-j