|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, April 10 2013 @ 03:19 AM EDT |
You said:It really depends on how you want to define memory system.
The RAM memory system
is built into the hardware of every PC I've ever owned.
In fact I've never seen
a personal computer where this wasn't so. Anything in
RAM or ROM is part of the
memory system. The BIOS only works by loading itself
into the RAM memory system,
although that strictly isn't a necessary step, just
how PCs work.
The patents said:
a switch fabric
connected to one or more memory sections and the external device interfaces and
interconnecting the memory sections and the external device interfaces based on
an algorithm.
a switch controller that executes
software, including a routing algorithm; and a selectively configurable switch
fabric connected to one or more memory sections and the one or more interfaces
and interconnecting the memory sections and the one or more interfaces based on
the routing algorithm.
During the production of a damning answer
to your comment, I came to realise that these are two very different inventions.
Taking the second invention first, it is based on a switch controller
that executes software. The HDD has a controller. Your computers have more than
one controller if they are multi-threading and/or multi-core. They do not
infringe on this claim. The same applies to a RAID array which has a controller
on each HDD and in the RAID controller. So, there you are: not prior art because
not infringing!
The first invention is much more interesting because a
single controller is not claimed. Now your computers are prior art.
Interestingly, the Google interweb server farm is also prior art. So is every
server farm whether internet connected or not. They are the same systems and
methods as those claimed in the invention. The switch fabric has routers for
routing algorithms (whether they be internet switches or server farm
switches)and for memory access failures and the Google service has a routing
algorithm for reaching each element in the memory fabric. The one or more
interfaces are Internet browsers in client machines.
Since even mobile
phones tend to come with multiple cores, I cannot think that there are many
modern systems that can infringe on the second invention. I struggle to work out
how many decades one can go back for prior art for the first invention. I think
the ENIAC computer qualifies because of the processor accessing the memory
fabric via a routing algorithm based on memory addresses.---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
