Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
US Patent 7,124,075 “Methods and apparatus for pitch determination”
will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San Francisco. The patent addresses a core problem of signal processing in general, and speech signal processing in particular: period (fundamental frequency) determination of a (quasi)-periodic signal, or pitch detection problem in speech/audio signal processing. Patented nonlinear signal processing techniques originate from chaos theory and address known limitations of traditional linear signal processing methods like FFT or correlation. Patented methods are amenable to efficient implementation in both software and hardware (FPGAs, ASICs). Forward citations include Microsoft, Mitsubishi Space Software, Broadcom, Sharp and Teradata. Visit ICAP’s website for more information: http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale |
#2
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
so Vlad,
what do you think Dmitry will get for it? maybe some patent trolls will get it and then start suing IVL or AXON or Roland or Eventide with it. i sorta wonder. -- r b-j "Imagination is more important than knowledge." On 10/31/11 12:40 AM, Dude Whocares wrote: US Patent 7,124,075 “Methods and apparatus for pitch determination” will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San Francisco. .... |
#3
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
robert bristow-johnson wrote: so Vlad, what do you think Dmitry will get for it? Zero, as usual. maybe some patent trolls will get it and then start suing IVL or AXON or Roland or Eventide with it. i sorta wonder. Poor fellow is out of his mind. |
#4
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
robert bristow-johnson wrote: so Vlad, what do you think Dmitry will get for it? Zero, as usual. maybe some patent trolls will get it and then start suing IVL or AXON or Roland or Eventide with it. i sorta wonder. Poor fellow is out of his mind. |
#5
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
EP1451804, the corresponding European Patent application, is
considered withdrawn : prior art has been found... How much does it cost to invalidate a patent in the US ? |
#6
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 1, 10:10*am, Regis wrote:
EP1451804, the corresponding European Patent application, is considered withdrawn : prior art has been found... How much does it cost to invalidate a patent in the US ? A lawyer which you are should always check facts before posting and never ever try to promote deliberate lies, even under pseudonym on the internet EPO can and does recycle same "prior art" references cited by applicant himself to USPTO and already discussed in depth in office actions and interviews with US examiners ... just to prolong the process and extort more money from poor applicant... until he is fed up paying through his nose and walks away... Just tell me why EPO keeps collecting huge annuities on pending applications (and keeps them pending for many years) and why you have to go through EU-registered attorney like yourself just to communicate with EPO ? BTW, can you post your registration number ? |
#7
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
fatalist wrote: Hello Dmitry Teres; On Nov 1, 10:10 am, Regis wrote: EP1451804, the corresponding European Patent application, is considered withdrawn : prior art has been found... How much does it cost to invalidate a patent in the US ? A lawyer which you are should always check facts before posting and never ever try to promote deliberate lies, even under pseudonym on the internet "Tell us about your success" (c) Dmitry Teres. |
#8
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
A lawyer which you are should always check facts before posting and never ever try to promote deliberate lies, even under pseudonym on the internet EPO can and does recycle same "prior art" references cited by applicant himself to USPTO and already discussed in depth in office actions and interviews with US examiners *... *just to prolong the process and extort more money from poor applicant... until he is fed up paying through his nose and walks away... Just tell me why EPO keeps collecting huge annuities on pending applications (and keeps them pending for many years) and why you have to go through EU-registered attorney like yourself just to communicate with EPO ? *BTW, can you post your registration number ? About verifying facts... I'm not a lawyer but an EPO patent examiner. An applicant can always request an accelerated search and examination at the EPO, for free. I was just questioning the legal certainty of a patent in the US, which application has been abandoned at the EPO without even a reply to the first communication, citing novelty destroying documents. I did not check if these documents were also cited at the USPTO, before or after the EPO search report had been issued. |
#9
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 3, 6:57*am, Regis wrote:
A lawyer which you are should always check facts before posting and never ever try to promote deliberate lies, even under pseudonym on the internet EPO can and does recycle same "prior art" references cited by applicant himself to USPTO and already discussed in depth in office actions and interviews with US examiners *... *just to prolong the process and extort more money from poor applicant... until he is fed up paying through his nose and walks away... Just tell me why EPO keeps collecting huge annuities on pending applications (and keeps them pending for many years) and why you have to go through EU-registered attorney like yourself just to communicate with EPO ? *BTW, can you post your registration number ? About verifying facts... I'm not a lawyer but an EPO patent examiner. An applicant can always request an accelerated search and examination at the EPO, for free. I was just questioning the legal certainty of a patent in the US, which application has been abandoned at the EPO without even a reply to the first communication, citing novelty destroying documents. I did not check if these documents were also cited at the USPTO, before or after the EPO search report had been issued.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Every US patent attorney is obligated to submit all prior art references coming his way to USPTO during patent prosecution, including references from EPO search reports Once submitted prior art references are considered by examiner and made of record (and discussed in office actions and interviews), and US patent is officially granted then your chance of getting re-exam request approved based on the very same references is ZERO |
#10
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Oct 31, 12:40*am, Dude Whocares wrote:
US Patent 7,124,075 “Methods and apparatus for pitch determination” will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San Francisco. The patent addresses a core problem of signal processing in general, and speech signal processing in particular: period (fundamental frequency) determination of a (quasi)-periodic signal, or pitch detection problem in speech/audio signal processing. Patented nonlinear signal processing techniques originate from chaos theory and address known limitations of traditional linear signal processing methods like FFT or correlation. Patented methods are amenable to efficient implementation in both software and hardware (FPGAs, ASICs). Forward citations include Microsoft, Mitsubishi Space Software, Broadcom, Sharp and Teradata. Visit ICAP’s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale Ideas, it turns out, are a dime a dozen. Committing to an idea and putting massive energy into the idea , with the realization that the work may not even pay off... that is where the money is (or not) |
#11
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 3, 2:29*pm, fatalist wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:18*pm, brent wrote: On Oct 31, 12:40*am, Dude Whocares wrote: US Patent 7,124,075 “Methods and apparatus for pitch determination” will be auctioned as Lot 147 at the upcoming ICAP Patent Brokerage Live IP Action on November 17, 2011 at The Ritz Carlton, San Francisco. The patent addresses a core problem of signal processing in general, and speech signal processing in particular: period (fundamental frequency) determination of a (quasi)-periodic signal, or pitch detection problem in speech/audio signal processing. Patented nonlinear signal processing techniques originate from chaos theory and address known limitations of traditional linear signal processing methods like FFT or correlation. Patented methods are amenable to efficient implementation in both software and hardware (FPGAs, ASICs). Forward citations include Microsoft, Mitsubishi Space Software, Broadcom, Sharp and Teradata. Visit ICAP’s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale Ideas, it turns out, are a dime a dozen. *Committing to an idea and putting massive energy into the idea , with the realization that the work may not even pay off... that is where the money is (or not)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - "Ideas" are not patentable novel and non-obvious workable solutions to long-standing industry problems are. As far as quitting your job and mortgaging your house to fully "commit" to an "idea": you are more than welcome to do it yourself (if your wife doesn't mind...) thanks but no thanks exactly |
#12
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
Visit ICAP’s website for more information:http://icappatentbrokerage.com/forsale Have you looked at some of the "patents" this site has for sale !!! Look at "AUC 003", this nut case was given a patent for an "Illuminated License Plate". Google "Illuminated License Plate" and you get "About 3,310,000 results (0.30 seconds)" !! But, if you Google "lighted license plates" you get "About 4,610,000 results (0.22 seconds)" !! WAIT !! You get more hits in less time for a slight difference in search parameters. What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. Where is it all going...... SHS (Shacking Head Slowly) hamilton |
#13
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
hamilton wrote:
What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once they get approved, they stay in the system. We have now come to a time when just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued. Where is it all going...... SHS (Shacking Head Slowly) Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious. The software patents are really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are approving patents in. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#14
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
Scott Dorsey wrote:
hamilton wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once they get approved, they stay in the system. We have now come to a time when just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued. I think this trend is representative of a fundamentally different view of the role of the USPTO. In the general "deregulate everything and let the private sector sort it out" approach of Tea Farty legislators, infringements will get sorted out in the courts, providing job protections for lawyers and magistrates, but the "99 percenters" gets screwed once again. -- Neil |
#15
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On 11/4/11 9:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. NPR planet money did some, recent, interesting investigation into the patent world. In one segment they indicated that the patent office is one of the only government offices that operates at a net positive (bring in more money than they spend). But they are not allowed to use that money for hiring etc. They are given a fixed budget each year and the gross proceeds are used by congress for other pet projects. They eluded this is one of the problems with patent reform, because it is a source of income. ..chris Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once they get approved, they stay in the system. We have now come to a time when just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued. Where is it all going...... SHS (Shacking Head Slowly) Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious. The software patents are really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are approving patents in. --scott |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On 11/4/2011 10:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
hamilton wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. It takes 3 to 5 years for a typical patent application to make its way through the PTO. What's interesting is that since filing fees are paid up front, the PTO is living off of fees for work it's hopefully going to do in the next 3 to 5 years. Let's hope they don't have a major downturn in business. Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious. The software patents are really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are approving patents in. The guys on the list might like this Novelty Keyhole Finder patent. http://goo.gl/mHOVq |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
mcp6453 wrote:
The guys on the list might like this Novelty Keyhole Finder patent. http://goo.gl/mHOVq That's a very important product that could be extremely useful for someone who has consumed a lot of these: http://www.google.com/patents/downlo...erview_r&cad=0 --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#18
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 4, 7:58*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
hamilton wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. *There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. snip No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system, patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when. That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle it out in court using the patents as little more then official documentation. Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the US government. Rick |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On 11/4/2011 7:21 PM, Rick wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:58 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: hamilton wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. snip No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system, patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when. That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle it out in court using the patents as little more then official documentation. What you were told is wrong. Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the US government. Can't follow this logic. |
#20
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 5, 12:21*am, Rick wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:58*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: hamilton wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. *There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. snip No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system, patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when. That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle it out in court using the patents as little more then official documentation. Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the US government. Rick The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted patents is generally recognised. Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to read the EPO search report beforehand... |
#21
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 7, 5:03*am, Regis wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:21*am, Rick wrote: On Nov 4, 7:58*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: hamilton wrote: What was the patent examiner thinking !! He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided there was no prior art. That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. *There are huge numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless examiners. snip No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system, patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when. That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle it out in court using the patents as little more then official documentation. Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the US government. Rick The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted patents is generally recognised. Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to read the EPO search report beforehand...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on the internet: *lying is a bad thing* All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on the US patent's front page EPO hasn't cited any other references The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the internet including EPO examiner) Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And your posts can only add to this... EPO is one big ripoff |
#22
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on the internet: *lying is a bad thing* All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on the US patent's front page EPO hasn't cited any other references The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the internet including EPO examiner) Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And your posts can only add to this... EPO is one big ripoff OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006, has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO examiner in 2008 ! Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october 1989. This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ? Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no. 1, January 1999. |
#23
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 8, 10:37*am, Regis wrote:
And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on the internet: *lying is a bad thing* All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on the US patent's front page EPO hasn't cited any other references The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the internet including EPO examiner) Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And your posts can only add to this... EPO is one big ripoff OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006, has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO examiner in 2008 ! Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october 1989. This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ? Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no. 1, January 1999. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You don't have Internet at EPO ? All this info was publicly available from www.uspto.gov to anyone on the internet including EPO examiners First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002. Second reference (Banbrook) was cited in another IDS filed after EPO search report came in 2005 Both references were considered by US examiner and made of record (they are listed on the officially granted patent under "Other references") Second reference is only marginally relevant - there is nothing to discuss about it other than the general field of research and it was mentioned only in the passing by EPO examiner. EPO examiner relied on the first reference (Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october 1989) to state lack of novelty. In doing so, EPO examiner made a 100% erroneous statement, confusing imaginary "periodic orbits" characterizing the behaviour of aperiodic chaotic strange attractor described in the reference with "periodic signals" To be honest, US examiner initially made the same error but was corrected after extensive discussions and a personal interview. The contents of those discussions are publicly available to anyone on the internet as part of US patent prosecution history as early as 2006. Here is the link to Lathrop et al. reference: http://complex.umd.edu/papers/attractororbits1989.pdf You can judge for yourself how it affects the novelty of pitch (fundamental frequency) determination methods disclosed in US Patent 7,124,075 (if you are qualified to read and understand Lathrop et al. paper, which is almost certainly not the case) |
#24
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
"First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good
faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002." Why did you do that? Have also a look at http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers...2EFiDSHZrpW4Y1 |
#25
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale
On Nov 9, 9:51*am, Regis wrote:
"First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002." Why did you do that? Have also a look athttp://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussi... "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
a fundamental misunderstanding | Pro Audio | |||
newbie fundamental speaker question | Car Audio | |||
what kind of sonogram are u using for detecting fundamental frequency? | Pro Audio | |||
Fundamental mid-side questions | Pro Audio | |||
OT - metric conversion - fundamental data | Pro Audio |