Is it legal to write an logical equation for a FPGA LUT in c

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi,
I am writing a patent application for FPGA and have no prior
experiences with patent writing.

I found that in Xilinx patents, all lookup table equations are
described in AND/OR/Multiplexer circuits in its claims. Describing a
logic connection for a lookup table in claims is much more complex in
English than presenting an equivalent logic equation.

For example, a lookup table has the equation:
Out <= (A*B) + (C*D);

It is much more concise and simpler than describing the circuit in
AND/OR gate circuits.

Do you have experiences with and any advices on writing an equivalent
logic equation in a patent claim field ?

Any consequences?

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Brad Smallridge]

Hmm. I assume you mean "acceptable" to the USPTO instead of legal. I suppose
since Xilinx does hardware, then its claims would be in gates rather than an
equation which could ambiguously be construed as hardware, software or
mathematics. Concise and simple are not the focus of the claims section of
the patent. The claims have to be narrowed so they don't intrude on other
patents. If you want a simpler and easy to follow explanation using the
equation notation, you can put it in the preferred embodiment section.

Brad Smallridge
aivision.com


"Weng Tianxiang" <wtxwtx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133542596.493746.45760@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi,
I am writing a patent application for FPGA and have no prior
experiences with patent writing.

I found that in Xilinx patents, all lookup table equations are
described in AND/OR/Multiplexer circuits in its claims. Describing a
logic connection for a lookup table in claims is much more complex in
English than presenting an equivalent logic equation.

For example, a lookup table has the equation:
Out <= (A*B) + (C*D);

It is much more concise and simpler than describing the circuit in
AND/OR gate circuits.

Do you have experiences with and any advices on writing an equivalent
logic equation in a patent claim field ?

Any consequences?

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi Brad,
Thank you for your response.

1. Yes, the 'legal' should change to 'acceptable'.

2. I agree with your opinion: "If you want a simpler and easy to follow
explanation using the
equation notation, you can put it in the preferred embodiment section.
"
The question arises when the logic equation in LUT is described in the
preferred embodiment section, but their correspondent logical circuits
are not described in a provisional patent application. When I file for
regular patent application later, claims would be invalid because the
appropriate circuits are not described in provisional patent
application.

So I want to know if there is an approved patent with logical equation
in its claims or if there is someone having experienced similar
scenario, but was declined by USPTO.

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Simon Peacock]

You are asking the wrong people.. you need to ask a patent attorney. They
are better at filling in the grey areas which is what you want... After
all.. if what you were doing was smart.. it would already be done.. and if
it is.. you had better have a better attorney then they do

besides.. you are asking a public domain news group.. therefore anything you
try to patent later and have describe here has been released into the public
domain before the patent has been applied for

Simon


"Weng Tianxiang" <wtxwtx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133550146.547748.109980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi Brad,
Thank you for your response.

1. Yes, the 'legal' should change to 'acceptable'.

2. I agree with your opinion: "If you want a simpler and easy to follow
explanation using the
equation notation, you can put it in the preferred embodiment section.
"
The question arises when the logic equation in LUT is described in the
preferred embodiment section, but their correspondent logical circuits
are not described in a provisional patent application. When I file for
regular patent application later, claims would be invalid because the
appropriate circuits are not described in provisional patent
application.

So I want to know if there is an approved patent with logical equation
in its claims or if there is someone having experienced similar
scenario, but was declined by USPTO.

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Weng Tianxiang]

Simon,
I am asking the right persons who did some inventions before and might
have good experiences with the problem I have met and I am asking for
their advices.

I didn't leak any information about my inventions. Never! But for
advices I would like to ask and don't know well.

How do you know a better layer who, for example, is the first time
dealing with your knowledge area? When you ask layers, they always have
advice for you, even though they are a novice one, or their knowledge
is in different area.

Weng

Simon Peacock wrote:

You are asking the wrong people.. you need to ask a patent attorney. They
are better at filling in the grey areas which is what you want... After
all.. if what you were doing was smart.. it would already be done.. and if
it is.. you had better have a better attorney then they do

besides.. you are asking a public domain news group.. therefore anything you
try to patent later and have describe here has been released into the public
domain before the patent has been applied for

Simon

 

[Brad Smallridge]

Finding a patent attorney with FPGA experience might be difficult. One way
to find one, I suppose, is to look at some of the prior art, and see if the
attorney is close by and still in practice. The more work you do on your
own, the cheaper it is in attorney fees.

I don't see anything wrong with Weng asking questions to the group. He
didn't reveal any innovation and was just asking about a procedural matter
of patent writing.

I am not even so sure that revealing the innovation would void his
opportunity to patent the idea, only put him at risk for someone beating him
to file, and he already has a provisional patent. I believe that the "offer
for sale" still triggers starts a one year deadline to get your patent
filed. And then after that there is a one year deadline to get you foreign
patents.

As to Weng's original question about provisional patents, I am not able to
answer. When I applied for patents, provisional patents didn't exist.

Brad Smallridge
w w w . a i v i s i o n. c o m


"Simon Peacock" <simon$actrix.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4393db05@news2.actrix.gen.nz...

You are asking the wrong people.. you need to ask a patent attorney. They
are better at filling in the grey areas which is what you want... After
all.. if what you were doing was smart.. it would already be done.. and if
it is.. you had better have a better attorney then they do

besides.. you are asking a public domain news group.. therefore anything
you
try to patent later and have describe here has been released into the
public
domain before the patent has been applied for

Simon


"Weng Tianxiang" <wtxwtx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133550146.547748.109980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi Brad,
Thank you for your response.

1. Yes, the 'legal' should change to 'acceptable'.

2. I agree with your opinion: "If you want a simpler and easy to follow
explanation using the
equation notation, you can put it in the preferred embodiment section.
"
The question arises when the logic equation in LUT is described in the
preferred embodiment section, but their correspondent logical circuits
are not described in a provisional patent application. When I file for
regular patent application later, claims would be invalid because the
appropriate circuits are not described in provisional patent
application.

So I want to know if there is an approved patent with logical equation
in its claims or if there is someone having experienced similar
scenario, but was declined by USPTO.

Thank you.

Weng

 

[Peter Alfke]

You can file for a US patent up to a year after having divulged the
idea.
That grace period does not apply to foreign filing. There you lose the
right to file immediately after divulging. So, foreign filing is more
demanding, not less.

As far as equations vs LUTs, I think it makes no difference. But
equations may be more widely understood. BTW, the OP is confusing in
the example, using a logic equation that is actually AND and OR...

Peter Alfke (with about 30 patents, but all filed by company patent
lawyers)

 

[Philip Freidin]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, but I have watched them on TV
and they all have better hair than me, so I know this is not a
career for me.


On 5 Dec 2005 15:18:11 -0800, "Weng Tianxiang" <wtxwtx@gmail.com> wrote:

I met a layer who hasn't finished his patent license testing yet
and prepared to open the patent application business and to help
me file patent applications.

Correct spelling is lawyer.

Using a lawyer who hasn't yet passed the appropriate tests might be
cheap, but may not be the best idea. A poorly written patent may
still get issued, but will be easier to invalidate later.

I have read many patents from Xilinx and especially pay attentions on
their claims. No patent claims from Xilinx contain any logical
equations.

That's because Xilinx does not typically file systems patents. They
don't care how the parts are used, just that they are used by many
customers. This is one of the reasons why you can't find details of
LUT contents. Another really important one in your case is the
following question: Does your idea REQUIRE that it be implemented
in a LUT, or is your idea DEPENDENT on being implemented in a LUT,
or is your idea a NEWER/BETTER LUT. If your answer is no to all of
these (and I am guessing it probably is) then you probably do not
want to tie you patemt application to implementation in a LUT. In
fact, tying it to details of LUT implementation provides a huge
hole for someone else to implement the idea in non-LUT stuff and
get around your patent. Same thing for implementation in an FPGA.
You probably should not require FPGA implementation to practice
your idea, since an ASIC, or a bag of TTL chips would also bypass
your patent.

Xilinx files patents because they don't want someone else to make
FPGAs that use the technology that they have invented. This is
independent of the LUT contents, which is why you don't see
patents from Xilinx that refer to specific contents.


You might find the following patent educational: 6148313

It goes to a level of detail even below logic equations, it gives
the raw bit patterns of the LUTs, since this is part of the
preferred embodiment. You will find no reference to LUTs in the
claims though. The patent should show how the claims could be
implemented, but the claims leave it far more open to cover other
implementations that depend only on what is in the claims.

The patent is the first to my knowledge that describes addition
through code compression (population counters), but the details
of the compressors is not in the claims. The primary claim of the
patent does not depend on code compressors.

Using a logical equation for LUT in claim area in a patent certainly
helps explain the idea of the invention. But Xilinx's layers never use
them, even though in the description area logical equations are used.
So I guess there are some rules in USPTO forbidding to use logical
equations for LUT in patent applications.

Again, unless your patent can only be implemented in LUTs, you
probably do not want to restrict your patent by mentioning LUTs in
the claims section. (But remember, I am not a lawyer).

Weng

Philip

 

[Weng Tianxiang]

Hi Jim,
I disagree with your opinion:
"You should be aware that 'Clarity' and 'Patent' are often mutually
exclusive".

I found that a Xilinx patent defines a 1-bit CPU that is capable to do
addition, subtraction and multiplication.

While doing addition and subtranction, the patent correctly lists its
equation. But in claim area, it describes it in a XOR and inverter to
describe the adder/subtractor. I found that I cannot change the
equation for the LUT, but it is easy for me to change the logic to
another logic implementing same equation.

That is the reason why I want to use logical equation in claims, not
gate circuit descriptions. For example, you can concisely describe an
addition/subtraction with a logical equation, but there are many
different logical circuits to implement the same equation.

Weng

Jim Granville wrote:

Weng Tianxiang wrote:
Hi,
I am writing a patent application for FPGA and have no prior
experiences with patent writing.

I found that in Xilinx patents, all lookup table equations are
described in AND/OR/Multiplexer circuits in its claims. Describing a
logic connection for a lookup table in claims is much more complex in
English than presenting an equivalent logic equation.

For example, a lookup table has the equation:
Out <= (A*B) + (C*D);

It is much more concise and simpler than describing the circuit in
AND/OR gate circuits.

Do you have experiences with and any advices on writing an equivalent
logic equation in a patent claim field ?

You should be aware that 'Clarity' and 'Patent' are often mutually
exclusive
Patent lawyers have motivation to obfuscate, for many reasons.
Patents are merely a license to litigate, (and an income stream for the
lawyer) so they tend to break them into many small claims, that can be
argued.
If there is prior art, it also helps to sound a lot different, even if
you are the same.
This also helps to get over the first hurdle, of Patent examiner.

Most (all?) FPGA patents will be electronic searchable, so scan those
yourself, and then "work your claim into the gaps" between those patents.

-jg

 

[raul]

Anything that is divulged in a public forum can constitute "prior art".
I have been part of a counter-legal action related to postings I have
made. So keep posting away if you want to be "prior art" and hope that
the "truth" will come through at some point.

RAUL
Not An Attorney