Custom Search
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
On Nov 7, 5:03=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote: > On Nov 5, 12:21=A0am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 7:58=A0am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:> hamilton = =A0<hamil...@nothere.com> 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 decid= ed > > > >there was no prior art. > > > > That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. =A0There are huge num= bers of > > > patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty c= lueless > > > 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 ripoffArticle: 152976
On Nov 7, 12:43=A0pm, "zsolt.garamvolgyi" <zsolt.garamvol...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 1:10=A0pm, Michael S <already5cho...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 4, 1:15=A0pm, "zsolt.garamvolgyi" <zsolt.garamvol...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm looking for an FPGA-based PCI Express development board which is > > > capable of transmitting data at about 1.4 GByte/sec to the host > > > computer (PCIe Gen1 x8 or Gen2 x4/x8). > > > > Further considerations: > > > 1. included IDE license > > > 2. included PCIe IP core license, which is also valid for other > > > designs based on the same FPGA > > > 3. minimal HW complexity (i.e., the smaller the FPGA, the better) > > > 4. price > > > > My current candidate is the Altera Arria II GX FPGA Development Kit > > > (although I'm not sure if the IP core license which comes with it is > > > not only for evaluation).http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/alter= a/kit-aiigx-pcie.html > > > > I would appreciate some information about your development experience > > > with this board or other boards which satisfy the above requirements. > > > Thank you for your time! > > > > Regards, > > > Zsolt > > > In our experience Altera's hard IP PCIe core present in StratixIV GX > > and in ArriaII GX is broken rather badly. > > That is, you can find certain hosts where it appears to work most of > > the time, but that's exception rather than rule. > > Soft IP core in these devices works relatively better, but still badly > > violates power up timing specifications defined in the PCIe standard, > > so we generally prefer to plug it into slots that support hot plug, > > since such slots are typically more tolerant to this sort of timing > > violations. Unfortunately for you, you want x8 slot. x8 slots with > > support for hot plug are significantly rarer than x4/x1 slots. > > This is really interesting. Can you tell me, exactly which hosts (if > any) did you manage to get the hard IP core work with correctly? > I recollect that we had better luck with hard IP on Altera's own Stratix IV GX FPGA Development Board (EP4SGX230KF40 device) in x8 Gen2 slot of Intel S3420GP motherboard. Still not robust enough to ship it to client, but it was handy during development (faster compilation time than soft IP core and no need for license). However combination of the same board with the same Altera device and the Hard IP core did not work at all on Terrasic DE4. The same Terrasic DE4 works pretty well with soft IP core. As to hard IP on ArriaII-GX, I didn't try it myself. The colleges reported zero success rate. > > Overall, if you decided to go with Altera, the most robust combination > > is old StatixII GX + soft PCIe core + Quartus 9.1 Sp1 or Sp2. > > I would prefer using an Altera device as I have more experience with > their design tools. > As the Stratix II GX board is obsolete, I think I could use the Arria > II GX board with the soft IP core, too, with the drawbacks of > additional license cost and FPGA resource usage. The Arria II GX + > hard IP combination is quite compelling (at least on paper). > In our experience paper and silicon are quite different. Now, soft IP PCIe cores obviously work both on StratixII-GX and on ArriaII-GX. However on StratixII-GX they work better. If all you need is 1 or 2 boards, is it so hard to find Stratix II GX dev boards? > Do you have experience with other vendors' PCIe boards/IP cores? No, I don't. > Is there a more robust solution available? > For x4 Gen1 the Gennum GN4124 is probably the most robust solution, but I am not aware of ready-to-buy development boards with GN4124 + Altera FPGA. On the other hand, I didn't look for them. > > BTW, even on x8 Gen1, hitting 1.4 GB/s =A0in the read direction will be > > very very hard =A0(but it sounds like you don't need it). Hitting 1.4 G= B/ > > s in =A0in write direction is significantly easier, but still non- > > trivial, esp. if you want to work with default 256B packets size. > > Yes, I'm aware of these limitations, but > 1. downstream data transfer is not a concern, > 2. 1.4 GB/s is an absolute worst case data rate estimation, and most > probably will be relaxed in the final specification. It's not > impossible that even a PCIe x4 board will fit the requirements. > > Regards, > Zsolt Good for you.Article: 152977
On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't > >require you to be a lawyer or use one. > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law. > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it > >is just like an election, file early and file often! > > >Rick > > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there. > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to > kill a good patent. > > Eric Jacobsen > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. I don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. I believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full application. A significant aspect of this is that you have no obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior art" registered with the USPTO. No one can subsequently apply for a patent on that same invention. I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely broken. I think the problem is that people don't know much about it and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. My car is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. But I guess your mileage may vary. :) RickArticle: 152978
On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I > > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One = is > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which > > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or ev= en > > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent = by > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the > > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one. > > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as > > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law. > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most > > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. > > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So i= t > > >is just like an election, file early and file often! > > > >Rick > > > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there. > > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or > > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to > > kill a good patent. > > > Eric Jacobsen > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com > > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. > > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full > application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior > art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a > patent on that same invention. > > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely > broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My car > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess > your mileage may vary. =A0:) > > Rick- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - "A significant aspect of this is that you have no obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior art" registered with the USPTO. No one can subsequently apply for a patent on that same invention." Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically expires in one year It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and claims the benefit of a provisionalArticle: 152979
On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > > > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert > > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They > > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish= I > > > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi= th > > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On= e is > > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic= h > > > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or = even > > > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten= t by > > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo= d > > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the > > > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't > > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one. > > > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as > > > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa= s > > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law. > > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most > > > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. > > > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So= it > > > >is just like an election, file early and file often! > > > > >Rick > > > > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there. > > > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of > > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or > > > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only > > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun= ds > > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to > > > kill a good patent. > > > > Eric Jacobsen > > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com > > > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I > > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I > > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need > > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. > > > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called > > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the > > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full > > application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no > > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior > > art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a > > patent on that same invention. > > > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely > > broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it > > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca= r > > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess > > your mileage may vary. =A0:) > > > Rick- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > "A significant aspect of this is that you have no > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior > art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a > patent on that same invention." > > Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically > expires in one year > > It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is > followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and > claims the benefit of a provisional This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. Remember this included two representatives from the USPTO. Even if the provisional application expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the USPTO. I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it. Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art? I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the application so they know it's prior art. RickArticle: 152980
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert >> >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They >> >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I >> >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with >> >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is >> >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which >> >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even >> >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by >> >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good >> >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the >> >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't >> >require you to be a lawyer or use one. >> >> >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as >> >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was >> >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law. >> >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most >> >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. >> >> >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it >> >is just like an election, file early and file often! >> >> >Rick >> >> Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there. >> >> Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of >> publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or >> processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only >> marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds >> like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to >> kill a good patent. >> >> Eric Jacobsen >> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com > >No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. I >don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. I >believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need >to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. >It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called >"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the >date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full >application. A significant aspect of this is that you have no >obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior >art" registered with the USPTO. No one can subsequently apply for a >patent on that same invention. Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't covered by material in the provisional application. The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the provisional application for any patents that might come out of it. Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file system. >I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely >broken. I think the problem is that people don't know much about it >and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. My car >is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. But I guess >your mileage may vary. :) Always. ;) Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152981
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: >> >> > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> >> > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert >> > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They >> > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish= > I >> > > >had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi= >th >> > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On= >e is >> > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic= >h >> > > >would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or = >even >> > > >a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten= >t by >> > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo= >d >> > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the >> > > >court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't >> > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one. >> >> > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as >> > > >the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa= >s >> > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law. >> > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most >> > > >profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. >> >> > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So= > it >> > > >is just like an election, file early and file often! >> >> > > >Rick >> >> > > Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there. >> >> > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of >> > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or >> > > processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only >> > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun= >ds >> > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to >> > > kill a good patent. >> >> > > Eric Jacobsen >> > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com >> >> > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I >> > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I >> > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need >> > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. >> >> > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called >> > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the >> > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full >> > application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no >> > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior >> > art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a >> > patent on that same invention. >> >> > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely >> > broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it >> > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca= >r >> > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess >> > your mileage may vary. =A0:) >> >> > Rick- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> "A significant aspect of this is that you have no >> obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior >> art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a >> patent on that same invention." >> >> Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically >> expires in one year >> >> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is >> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and >> claims the benefit of a provisional > >This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed >with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. Remember this included two >representatives from the USPTO. Even if the provisional application >expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the >USPTO. I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was >presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing >fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his >presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it. > >Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art? >I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the >application so they know it's prior art. > >Rick I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art". Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional. Or something like that... Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152982
Eric Jacobsen wrote: > Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to > establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the > file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are > some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one > can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't > covered by material in the provisional application. That means the provisional application should be prepared like full patent application. > The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and > doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a > draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the > provisional application for any patents that might come out of it. If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the subsequent patent application. > Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be > more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file > system. Provisional applications are pretty much pointless. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.comArticle: 152983
In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: (snip) >> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is >> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and >> claims the benefit of a provisional > This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed > with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. Remember this included two > representatives from the USPTO. Even if the provisional application > expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the > USPTO. I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was > presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing > fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his > presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it. > Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art? > I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the > application so they know it's prior art. My interpretation from the above statements (and not from any other) is that it could be used to claim prior art by the original filer, or, I suppose, by an agent of the filer. Even if the USPTO doesn't publish it, the original filer could, and that should be usable to claim prior art if someone else tried to patent it. As usual, IANAL and don't even pretend to be one on TV. -- glenArticle: 152984
On Nov 7, 3:30=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On Nov 7, 2:34=3DA0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 2:08=3DA0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On Nov 6, 12:28=3DA0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote= : > > >> > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com= > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =3DA0We had to e= xpert > >> > > >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =3DA0T= hey > >> > > >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =3DA0I only= wish=3D > > I > >> > > >had taken better notes. =3DA0I did get the chance to speak direct= ly wi=3D > >th > >> > > >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. = =3DA0On=3D > >e is > >> > > >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication w= hic=3D > >h > >> > > >would represent prior art. =3DA0This is attached at an applicatio= n or =3D > >even > >> > > >a granted patent. =3DA0If the patent holder tries to enforce the = paten=3D > >t by > >> > > >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in = goo=3D > >d > >> > > >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with = the > >> > > >court. =3DA0There were other things that can be done and they don= 't > >> > > >require you to be a lawyer or use one. > > >> > > >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well= as > >> > > >the USPTO representatives. =3DA0Probably the most useful thing th= at wa=3D > >s > >> > > >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the l= aw. > >> > > >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will m= ost > >> > > >profit. =3DA0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. > > >> > > >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. = =3DA0So=3D > > it > >> > > >is just like an election, file early and file often! > > >> > > >Rick > > >> > > Thanks for the update. =3DA0 I wish I could have been there. > > >> > > Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of > >> > > publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or > >> > > processed? =3DA0 What's to stop someone from filing something only > >> > > marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =3DA= 0Soun=3D > >ds > >> > > like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying t= o > >> > > kill a good patent. > > >> > > Eric Jacobsen > >> > > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com > > >> > No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =3DA0= I > >> > don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =3DA0= I > >> > believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't nee= d > >> > to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. > > >> > It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called > >> > "provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the > >> > date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full > >> > application. =3DA0A significant aspect of this is that you have no > >> > obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior > >> > art" registered with the USPTO. =3DA0No one can subsequently apply f= or a > >> > patent on that same invention. > > >> > I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is complete= ly > >> > broken. =3DA0I think the problem is that people don't know much abou= t it > >> > and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =3DA0= My ca=3D > >r > >> > is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =3DA0But I g= uess > >> > your mileage may vary. =3DA0:) > > >> > Rick- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> "A significant aspect of this is that you have no > >> obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior > >> art" registered with the USPTO. =3DA0No one can subsequently apply for= a > >> patent on that same invention." > > >> Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically > >> expires in one year > > >> It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is > >> followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and > >> claims the benefit of a provisional > > >This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed > >with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. =A0Remember this included two > >representatives from the USPTO. =A0Even if the provisional application > >expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the > >USPTO. =A0I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was > >presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing > >fee of only $125. =A0Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his > >presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it. > > >Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art? > >I'm not certain whether it is published or not. =A0But the USPTO has the > >application so they know it's prior art. > > >Rick > > I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art". > > Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as > evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a > formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional. > > Or something like that... > > Eric Jacobsen > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com Nope, he said the purpose of the provisional app is to establish a priority date, but it also establishes the date of prior art. He was very clear about this point. He said that once you file a provisional patent application that establishes prior art and even if you never follow up with the patent application the prior art forever locks out anyone from filing on this invention. He actually introduced the subject with a bullet that said how to establish prior art for only $125. No need to get something published in a journal or offer a product for sale. Just file with the USPTO. RickArticle: 152985
On Nov 7, 3:18=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >On Nov 6, 12:28=3DA0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > > >> >You guys missed a really great discussion today. =3DA0We had to exper= t > >> >presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =3DA0They > >> >discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =3DA0I only wis= h I > >> >had taken better notes. =3DA0I did get the chance to speak directly w= ith > >> >Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =3DA0O= ne is > >> >to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which > >> >would represent prior art. =3DA0This is attached at an application or= even > >> >a granted patent. =3DA0If the patent holder tries to enforce the pate= nt by > >> >filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good > >> >faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the > >> >court. =3DA0There were other things that can be done and they don't > >> >require you to be a lawyer or use one. > > >> >I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as > >> >the USPTO representatives. =3DA0Probably the most useful thing that w= as > >> >said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law. > >> >Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most > >> >profit. =3DA0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing. > > >> >BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =3DA0S= o it > >> >is just like an election, file early and file often! > > >> >Rick > > >> Thanks for the update. =3DA0 I wish I could have been there. > > >> Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of > >> publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or > >> processed? =3DA0 What's to stop someone from filing something only > >> marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =3DA0Sou= nds > >> like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to > >> kill a good patent. > > >> Eric Jacobsen > >> Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com > > >No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I > >don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I > >believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need > >to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted. > >It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called > >"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the > >date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full > >application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no > >obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior > >art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a > >patent on that same invention. > > Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. =A0 They're a means to > establish the "priority date" for an invention, =A0in other words the > file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. =A0 There are > some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one > can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't > covered by material in the provisional application. > > The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and > doesn't have a specific format. =A0e.g., it is not unusual to file a > draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the > provisional application for any patents that might come out of it. > > Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be > more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file > system. You seem to understand the provisional application well. Yes, provisional applications are not new. But they can be used to your benefit. I liked how Dr. Hollaar started his presentation by introducing the new law and how many are not happy with it. He then said that those who learn the new law and how best to use it are the ones who will benefit the most. Just like the rest of patent law. > >I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely > >broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it > >and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My car > >is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess > >your mileage may vary. =A0:) > > Always. =A0;) > > Eric Jacobsen > Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.comArticle: 152986
In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: (snip) > I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was > presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing > fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his > presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it. > Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art? > I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the > application so they know it's prior art. This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago, though never got into researching it more. That is, the ability to search encrypted text. If one could have a file if encrypted, but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art without being able to actually read it. One might be able to find that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might cause it to be prior art. I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some might even be patentable. -- glenArticle: 152987
On Nov 7, 3:41=A0pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote: > Eric Jacobsen wrote: > > Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. =A0 They're a means t= o > > establish the "priority date" for an invention, =A0in other words the > > file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. =A0 There are > > some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one > > can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't > > covered by material in the provisional application. > > That means the provisional application should be prepared like full > patent application. I don't recall the details of the full presentation. This was discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the provisional doesn't need to have claims at all. > > The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and > > doesn't have a specific format. =A0e.g., it is not unusual to file a > > draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the > > provisional application for any patents that might come out of it. > > If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard > to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the > subsequent patent application. I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy. > > Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be > > more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file > > system. > > Provisional applications are pretty much pointless. > > Vladimir Vassilevsky > DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com Yes, and how long have you been practicing patent law? RickArticle: 152988
rickman wrote: > On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> >>>Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to >>>establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the >>>file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are >>>some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one >>>can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't >>>covered by material in the provisional application. >> >>That means the provisional application should be prepared like full >>patent application. > > I don't recall the details of the full presentation. Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments. > This was > discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be > the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the > provisional doesn't need to have claims at all. Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly prepared provisional application could be very much useless. If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why provisional applications at all? >>>The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and >>>doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a >>>draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the >>>provisional application for any patents that might come out of it. >> >>If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard >>to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the >>subsequent patent application. > > I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be > expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy. Read the laws. USPTO doesn't give any consideration to provisional apps. It is your burden to prove the priority date or claim prior art using a provisional application as the argument. Which means that the provisional app must contain a clear and legally unambiguous definition of the invention; i.e. essentially the same as a patent app. Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.comArticle: 152989
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >rickman wrote: > >> On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>Eric Jacobsen wrote: >>> >>>>Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to >>>>establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the >>>>file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are >>>>some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one >>>>can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't >>>>covered by material in the provisional application. >>> >>>That means the provisional application should be prepared like full >>>patent application. >> >> I don't recall the details of the full presentation. > >Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments. > >> This was >> discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be >> the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the >> provisional doesn't need to have claims at all. > >Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or >anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly >prepared provisional application could be very much useless. >If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why >provisional applications at all? You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152990
On Nov 7, 4:08=A0pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > (snip) > > > I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was > > presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing > > fee of only $125. =A0Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his > > presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it. > > Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art? > > I'm not certain whether it is published or not. =A0But the USPTO has th= e > > application so they know it's prior art. > > This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago, > though never got into researching it more. =A0That is, the ability > to search encrypted text. =A0If one could have a file if encrypted, > but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one > could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art > without being able to actually read it. =A0One might be able to find > that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might > cause it to be prior art. > > I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some > might even be patentable. > > -- glen :-) :-) :-)........................ Good joke, I hope you are joking, right ? Trained patent examiners with education in the field and years of experience quite often (actually all the time) get confused by the wording in purported "prior art" documents and produce some unbelievably stupid office actions The question which comes to mind when reading those office actions is "did examiner read this particular patent application or some other random application ?" Software to find relevant "prior art" in encrypted files ? How about flying to Andromeda ? Unpublished documents can never ever be used as "prior art". Period. (This would destroy the whole premise on which patent system is based)Article: 152991
Eric Jacobsen wrote: > On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky > <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote: >>Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or >>anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly >>prepared provisional application could be very much useless. >>If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why >>provisional applications at all? > > > You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly. > Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning on using a provisional application? Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant http://www.abvolt.comArticle: 152992
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:10:29 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky >> <nospam@nowhere.com> wrote: > >>>Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or >>>anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly >>>prepared provisional application could be very much useless. >>>If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why >>>provisional applications at all? >> >> >> You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly. >> > >Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning >on using a provisional application? I'm not planning on it, but I'd certainly do it if I needed to. Some of the patents I've had granted were preceded by a provisional application. It's pretty common practice and a very useful mechanism when properly used. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.comArticle: 152993
> 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. :pArticle: 152994
On Nov 8, 10:37=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> 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. > > :p- 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)Article: 152995
"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?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=76828832&gid=78206&commentID=57537650&trk=view_disc&ut=2EFiDSHZrpW4Y1Article: 152996
On Nov 9, 9:51=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> 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?viewQuestionAndAn= swers=3D&discussi... "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"Article: 152997
Hi folks, I am an ASIC design engineer with over 6 years experience. My experience in ASIC design spans across microarchitecture, RTL coding, synthesis, timing closure and verification. Is it advisable for me if I change to a FPGA design job? I mean, what are the pros and cons? I do not have much experience in FPGA other than school projects. How much learning is involved? Will it be difficult to switch back to ASIC design position in the future if I move to a FPGA job? Do FPGA design involve less work and stress than ASIC? Please provide your opinion, experience or any other comment. Thanks!Article: 152998
On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 20:54:19 -0800, googler wrote: > Hi folks, > > I am an ASIC design engineer with over 6 years experience. My experience > in ASIC design spans across microarchitecture, RTL coding, synthesis, > timing closure and verification. Is it advisable for me if I change to a > FPGA design job? I mean, what are the pros and cons? I do not have much > experience in FPGA other than school projects. How much learning is > involved? Will it be difficult to switch back to ASIC design position in > the future if I move to a FPGA job? Do FPGA design involve less work and > stress than ASIC? Please provide your opinion, experience or any other > comment. I knew a guy who had done really good FPGA designs for years, and for years had yearned to do ASIC design with the "big boys". He lasted a year or two -- not because he wasn't up to the job, but because he hadn't realized the difference in the design cycle between ASIC and FPGA, and he vastly preferred FPGA design. Because with FPGA design, you do your system design and have a design review, then you do your coding and have a design review, and then you pour it all into the PC board that's been underway at the same time that you were doing your FPGA design. You bring it all up with the test features in the software whose design has _also_ been underway while you were working, and you test the heck out of it. At this point, you're far from done: the board will be getting green wires, the software will be getting revised (or, if everyone is smart, only the critical portions of the software will have been completed), and your logic design will probably need revision (or be incomplete). So it's not uncommon to spend a month or two tweaking and revising your "finished" design after it's finished. Tom's experience with ASIC design, on the other hand, was that you get the system design done, then you go write a bunch of behavioral code to completely embody the system design, and a testbench to completely test it. You churn on that for weeks or months while your colleagues make up new tests for corner cases. Then, once you've verified the snot out of the system design, you start replacing parts of your behavioral system piece-by-piece with the RTL- level code for your ASIC, testing all the way. So, (in Tom's words), you spend 90% of your time flogging the verification. This all makes sense: the cycle time between moving a comma in a Verilog file and testing the effect in an FPGA might only take between half an hour and several hours. The cycle time to do the same thing with an ASIC is weeks, and $$$, and trash bins full of parts. So doing the verification "live" makes good economic sense with FPGAs, and doing it in simulation makes equally good economic sense with ASICs. So: if the design cycle that I'm quoting for ASICs sounds accurate to you (I'm just forwarding a long-ago conversation), and the design cycle for FPGA work makes you think "ewww!", then FPGA work isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you get no joy from spending 90% of your time verifying before you actually get to see your work working -- maybe you'll like FPGA work. Tom did note barriers to transitioning to ASIC work (in part because he has an EET degree, not a "real" EE degree), and may not have found the transition back to FPGA work as easy as he did if he did not have a large circle of former coworkers who -- to a man -- were impressed by his work and willing to tell their bosses. (Tom's one of those guys that if he's applying for work you tell your boss "just hire him, he'll make it work"). So, that's what I know. -- www.wescottdesign.comArticle: 152999
googler <pinaki_m77@yahoo.com> wrote: > I am an ASIC design engineer with over 6 years experience. My > experience in ASIC design spans across microarchitecture, RTL coding, > synthesis, timing closure and verification. Is it advisable for me if > I change to a FPGA design job? Do you mean a job designing using FPGAs, or designing FPGAs? The latter is pretty much a specialized version of ASIC design, though it is probably good to know a lot about designing using FPGAs first. Otherwise, as I understand it with mask costs going up, more and more that previously would have been ASIC are going to FPGA. -- glen
Site Home Archive Home FAQ Home How to search the Archive How to Navigate the Archive
Compare FPGA features and resources
Threads starting:
Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z