|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT |
If the patent is unclear to an individual ordinarily skilled in the art, then it
is invalid. It MUST be clear and concise and EXACT in expression, otherwise
it's not valid.
Being an individual ordinarily skilled in the art of compilers, VMs and byte
code interpretors, I'm qualified to say that indexed memory must be a numeric
reference, if not, then the claim construction is unclear, and contradictory.
If numeric references are "symbolic" then the claim is unclear: It
would cover any type of reference a computer could perform, but the wording
makes explicit exception to SOME type of reference, other than symbolic
existing... I must conclude the only type of reference, other than symbolic,
that CAN exist would be numeric in nature, and refer to a memory address.
Memory addresses themselves are not direct, the OS maps pages of memory to
virtual addresses. If a pointer is not symbolic, then neither is an index or
offset.
Index and offset are both given it the units of memory addresses. You can't mix
units -- It's basic math. If address + offset = another address; then offset
must be given in terms of memory addresses too...
o_O
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Semantics - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- Index units - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT
|
|
|
|