Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale

[Dude Whocares]

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

[robert bristow-johnson]

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 r...@audioimagination.com

"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.

...

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

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.

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

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.

[Regis]

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considered withdrawn : prior art has been found...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 ?

:)

[fatalist]

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 ?

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

fatalist wrote:

Hello Dmitry Teres;

> On Nov 1, 10:10 am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> 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.

[Regis]

> 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.

[fatalist]

> 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

[brent]

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)

[fatalist]

> 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

[brent]

exactly

[hamilton]

>>>> 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

[Scott Dorsey]

hamilton <hami...@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 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."

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hamilton <hami...@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
>> 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

[Christopher Felton]

On 11/4/11 9:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hamilton<hami...@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 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

[Rick]

On Nov 4, 7:58 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> hamilton  <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 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

[Regis]

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...

[fatalist]

> 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

[Regis]

> 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

[fatalist]

> :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)

[Regis]

"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=2EFiDSHZrpW4Y1

[fatalist]

On Nov 9, 9:51 am, 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?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussi...

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"