FPGA Central

Hi,
I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
for U.S. patents.

Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.

My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S.
patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
outputs.

Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate.

Thank you.

Weng

On Jun 14, 1:21*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
> not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
> later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> for U.S. patents.
>
> Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S.
> patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
> outputs.
>
> Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
> Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Weng

I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
used in a device. It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineer a
chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
is vulnerable to being copied.

What exactly *does* the patent claim? Maybe the design inside the
circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circle is
novel enough to be patented?

In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. I've never
seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?

Rick

On Jun 15, 4:36*am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 14, 1:21*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi,
> > I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> > found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> > was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
> > not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
> > later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> > for U.S. patents.
>
> > Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> > transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> > hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> > My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> > patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> > didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> > requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S.
> > patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> > done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
> > outputs.
>
> > Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
> > Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Weng
>
> I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
> used in a device. *It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineer a
> chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
> is vulnerable to being copied.
>
> What exactly *does* the patent claim? *Maybe the design inside the
> circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circle is
> novel enough to be patented?
>
> In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. *I've never
> seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


Hi Rick,
Here is a link to Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1 and page 43
shows the invention circuit:
http://www.altera.com/literature/hb/...v/stx4_5v1.pdf

Why is it very useful? In the Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1, it
describes two applications: multiplication and correlation function.

Any other applications? With multiplier hardware structure specially
introduced in FPGA, is multiplication circuit still used for
multiplication?

Weng

On Jun 15, 10:13 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 4:36 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 1:21 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
> > > I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> > > found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> > > was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> > > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
> > > not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
> > > later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> > > for U.S. patents.
>
> > > Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> > > transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> > > hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> > > My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> > > patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> > > didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> > > requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S.
> > > patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> > > done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
> > > outputs.
>
> > > Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
> > > Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate.
>
> > > Thank you.
>
> > > Weng
>
> > I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
> > used in a device. It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineer a
> > chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
> > is vulnerable to being copied.
>
> > What exactly *does* the patent claim? Maybe the design inside the
> > circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circle is
> > novel enough to be patented?
>
> > In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. I've never
> > seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?
>
> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Rick,
> Here is a link to Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1 and page 43
> shows the invention circuit:http://www.altera.com/literature/hb/...v/stx4_5v1.pdf
>
> Why is it very useful? In the Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1, it
> describes two applications: multiplication and correlation function.
>
> Any other applications? With multiplier hardware structure specially
> introduced in FPGA, is multiplication circuit still used for
> multiplication?

Although they show the interconnections being used, they don't show
the logic implemented in the LUTs. The carry from one bit to the next
is done with two signals each of which has the same weight. As far as
I can tell, this is just a pair of cascaded adders, the first done in
the LUTs and the second done in dedicated hardware. The only novelty
is that instead of adding two inputs with one adder chain (the LUTs)
and then adding the result to the third input with the dedicated
hardware chain, they add all three input bits using the LUTs and feed
both carry bits into the dedicated hardware chain which means the
carry chain always uses the fast, dedicated hardware.

Does that sound like a patent worthy invention to you? I don't really
know what is and what is not worthy of a patent. But other patents
"based" on this patent will not be affected by the validity of this
patent. Even if this patent is upheld, ***I*** could patent some
additional feature that uses this design as a starting point. I just
can't build it without permission from the patent holder of the
original design. Still, this means he/she couldn't use my idea
without my permission either.

Rick

On Jun 15, 8:39*am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 10:13 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 4:36 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:21 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> > > > found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> > > > was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> > > > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
> > > > not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
> > > > later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> > > > for U.S. patents.
>
> > > > Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> > > > transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> > > > hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> > > > My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> > > > patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> > > > didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> > > > requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S.
> > > > patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> > > > done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
> > > > outputs.
>
> > > > Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
> > > > Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate..
>
> > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > Weng
>
> > > I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
> > > used in a device. *It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineera
> > > chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
> > > is vulnerable to being copied.
>
> > > What exactly *does* the patent claim? *Maybe the design inside the
> > > circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circle is
> > > novel enough to be patented?
>
> > > In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. *I've never
> > > seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?
>
> > > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Rick,
> > Here is a link to Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1 and page 43
> > shows the invention circuit:http://www.altera.com/literature/hb/...v/stx4_5v1.pdf
>
> > Why is it very useful? In the Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1, it
> > describes two applications: multiplication and correlation function.
>
> > Any other applications? With multiplier hardware structure specially
> > introduced in FPGA, is multiplication circuit still used for
> > multiplication?
>
> Although they show the interconnections being used, they don't show
> the logic implemented in the LUTs. *The carry from one bit to the next
> is done with two signals each of which has the same weight. *As far as
> I can tell, this is just a pair of cascaded adders, the first done in
> the LUTs and the second done in dedicated hardware. *The only novelty
> is that instead of adding two inputs with one adder chain (the LUTs)
> and then adding the result to the third input with the dedicated
> hardware chain, they add all three input bits using the LUTs and feed
> both carry bits into the dedicated hardware chain which means the
> carry chain always uses the fast, dedicated hardware.
>
> Does that sound like a patent worthy invention to you? *I don't really
> know what is and what is not worthy of a patent. *But other patents
> "based" on this patent will not be affected by the validity of this
> patent. *Even if this patent is upheld, ***I*** could patent some
> additional feature that uses this design as a starting point. *I just
> can't build it without permission from the patent holder of the
> original design. *Still, this means he/she couldn't use my idea
> without my permission either.
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Rick,
There are two novel points there:
1. It transfers 3 adders into 2 adders which was described very clear:
nobody before had invented that point.
2. Circuit is marked by circled '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs whose
internal structure wasn't shown.
3. I am sure there may be more than 20 claims in the application as
Altera patent claim trandition goes.

Weng

You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
patent application.
It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
"Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
Also, can you post the patent application number.

- outputlogic

http://outputlogic.com

On Jun 15, 9:23*am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> patent application.
> It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
> "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
> correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> Also, can you post the patent application number.
>
> - outputlogic
>
> http://outputlogic.com

Hi,
Its application number is 10/718,968 filed on November 21, 2003.

Weng

On Jun 15, 9:23*am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> patent application.
> It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
> "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
> correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> Also, can you post the patent application number.
>
> - outputlogic
>
> http://outputlogic.com

Hi OutputLogic,
Thank you for your information.

I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
error information:
"Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available.
The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
application
that is not yet available for public inspection."

I don't know why I got the error message.

10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
"Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
following website:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...=0&as_maxy_is=

Weng

On Jun 15, 8:39*am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 10:13 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 4:36 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 14, 1:21 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> > > > found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> > > > was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> > > > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
> > > > not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
> > > > later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> > > > for U.S. patents.
>
> > > > Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> > > > transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> > > > hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> > > > My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> > > > patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> > > > didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> > > > requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S.
> > > > patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> > > > done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
> > > > outputs.
>
> > > > Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
> > > > Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate..
>
> > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > Weng
>
> > > I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
> > > used in a device. *It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineera
> > > chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
> > > is vulnerable to being copied.
>
> > > What exactly *does* the patent claim? *Maybe the design inside the
> > > circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circle is
> > > novel enough to be patented?
>
> > > In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. *I've never
> > > seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?
>
> > > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Rick,
> > Here is a link to Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1 and page 43
> > shows the invention circuit:http://www.altera.com/literature/hb/...v/stx4_5v1.pdf
>
> > Why is it very useful? In the Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1, it
> > describes two applications: multiplication and correlation function.
>
> > Any other applications? With multiplier hardware structure specially
> > introduced in FPGA, is multiplication circuit still used for
> > multiplication?
>
> Although they show the interconnections being used, they don't show
> the logic implemented in the LUTs. *The carry from one bit to the next
> is done with two signals each of which has the same weight. *As far as
> I can tell, this is just a pair of cascaded adders, the first done in
> the LUTs and the second done in dedicated hardware. *The only novelty
> is that instead of adding two inputs with one adder chain (the LUTs)
> and then adding the result to the third input with the dedicated
> hardware chain, they add all three input bits using the LUTs and feed
> both carry bits into the dedicated hardware chain which means the
> carry chain always uses the fast, dedicated hardware.
>
> Does that sound like a patent worthy invention to you? *I don't really
> know what is and what is not worthy of a patent. *But other patents
> "based" on this patent will not be affected by the validity of this
> patent. *Even if this patent is upheld, ***I*** could patent some
> additional feature that uses this design as a starting point. *I just
> can't build it without permission from the patent holder of the
> original design. *Still, this means he/she couldn't use my idea
> without my permission either.
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Rick,
"The only novelty
is that instead of adding two inputs with one adder chain (the LUTs)
and then adding the result to the third input with the dedicated
hardware chain, they add all three input bits using the LUTs and feed
both carry bits into the dedicated hardware chain which means the
carry chain always uses the fast, dedicated hardware. "

The method I found was invented as early as 1963 by C.S. Wallace in
paper "A suggestion for a Fast Multiplier"
http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~bushnel...llacepaper.pdf

The circuit circled in '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs is novelty in
my opinion, but they didn't disclose it.

Weng

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Weng Tianxiang
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The circuit circled in '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs is novelty in
>my opinion, but they didn't disclose it.
>

It would be interesting to see if it's anything other than a 3:2
compressor.
--
Muzaffer Kal

DSPIA INC.
ASIC/FPGA Design Services

http://www.dspia.com

On Jun 15, 5:06*pm, Muzaffer Kal <k...@dspia.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Weng Tianxiang
>
> <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The circuit circled in '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs is novelty in
> >my opinion, but they didn't disclose it.
>
> It would be interesting to see if it's anything other than a 3:2
> compressor.
> --
> Muzaffer Kal
>
> DSPIA INC.
> ASIC/FPGA Design Services
>
> http://www.dspia.com

Here is another good reference published in 1994 by Stanford Ph. D
student Gary W. Bewick as his dissatation paper.

ftp://reports.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/...-TR-94-617.pdf,
page 34 where a 3:2 compressor was shown graphically.

Weng

On Jun 15, 12:22*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 8:39*am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 10:13 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 4:36 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 14, 1:21 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> > > > > found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> > > > > was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> > > > > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003has
> > > > > not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though many Altera
> > > > > later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> > > > > for U.S. patents.
>
> > > > > Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> > > > > transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> > > > > hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> > > > > My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> > > > > patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> > > > > didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> > > > > requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U.S..
> > > > > patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> > > > > done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and2
> > > > > outputs.
>
> > > > > Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure isfor
> > > > > Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate.
>
> > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > Weng
>
> > > > I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
> > > > used in a device. *It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineer a
> > > > chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
> > > > is vulnerable to being copied.
>
> > > > What exactly *does* the patent claim? *Maybe the design inside the
> > > > circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circleis
> > > > novel enough to be patented?
>
> > > > In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. *I've never
> > > > seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?
>
> > > > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Hi Rick,
> > > Here is a link to Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1 and page 43
> > > shows the invention circuit:http://www.altera.com/literature/hb/...v/stx4_5v1.pdf
>
> > > Why is it very useful? In the Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1, it
> > > describes two applications: multiplication and correlation function.
>
> > > Any other applications? With multiplier hardware structure specially
> > > introduced in FPGA, is multiplication circuit still used for
> > > multiplication?
>
> > Although they show the interconnections being used, they don't show
> > the logic implemented in the LUTs. *The carry from one bit to the next
> > is done with two signals each of which has the same weight. *As far as
> > I can tell, this is just a pair of cascaded adders, the first done in
> > the LUTs and the second done in dedicated hardware. *The only novelty
> > is that instead of adding two inputs with one adder chain (the LUTs)
> > and then adding the result to the third input with the dedicated
> > hardware chain, they add all three input bits using the LUTs and feed
> > both carry bits into the dedicated hardware chain which means the
> > carry chain always uses the fast, dedicated hardware.
>
> > Does that sound like a patent worthy invention to you? *I don't really
> > know what is and what is not worthy of a patent. *But other patents
> > "based" on this patent will not be affected by the validity of this
> > patent. *Even if this patent is upheld, ***I*** could patent some
> > additional feature that uses this design as a starting point. *I just
> > can't build it without permission from the patent holder of the
> > original design. *Still, this means he/she couldn't use my idea
> > without my permission either.
>
> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Rick,
> There are two novel points there:
> 1. It transfers 3 adders into 2 adders which was described very clear:
> nobody before had invented that point.

No, it is not 3 adders using 2 adders, it is always just 2 adders.
The only difference is that there is only one cascaded chain. There
are two carries between each bit of the adder, sort of like a
"Propagate/Generate" style of carry, only one results in a chained
delay calculation. But I don't see any real advantage to that. I
think the real advantage of this circuit is that it takes advantage of
the large, 6 input LUT by breaking it into dual 4 input LUTs... but
wait, that is still wasting half the 6 input LUTs. So it is really
just an optimization of their particular architecture.

The only possible novelty here is that they are doing this in an
FPGA.


> 2. Circuit is marked by circled '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs whose
> internal structure wasn't shown.

Yep, that is because that part is not very patentable, in my opinion.
You don't put anything in a patent that is not patentable. Anything
you don't explain in a patent is not part of it.


> 3. I am sure there may be more than 20 claims in the application as
> Altera patent claim trandition goes.

Sure, any patent attorney worth his salt is going to put as many
claims in as possible. If I understand correctly any claim can stand
alone even if the others are struck down.

Rick

On Jun 15, 8:06*pm, Muzaffer Kal <k...@dspia.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:44:19 -0700 (PDT), Weng Tianxiang
>
> <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The circuit circled in '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs is novelty in
> >my opinion, but they didn't disclose it.
>
> It would be interesting to see if it's anything other than a 3:2
> compressor.


Someone is missing something. What is the three input, two output
circuit? Each bit of the adder has five inputs and three outputs.
The three addend inputs can add up to 3 and with the two carry inputs
the total can be up to five requiring two carrie outputs of weight 2
and the sum output of weight 1. Of course, I am looking at the data
sheet and I guess you are looking at the patent.

Rick

On Jun 15, 1:39*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 9:23*am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> > patent application.
> > It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
> > "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> > This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
> > correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> > Also, can you post the patent application number.
>
> > - outputlogic
>
> >http://outputlogic.com
>
> Hi OutputLogic,
> Thank you for your information.
>
> I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
> error information:
> "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available.
> The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
> application
> that is not yet available for public inspection."
>
> I don't know why I got the error message.
>
> 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
> "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
> Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
> following website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>
> Weng

7,394,287 is the patent number. It works for me at the USPTO. What
is the number you are searching for?

Rick

On Jun 15, 9:25*pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 12:22*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 8:39*am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 10:13 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 4:36 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 14, 1:21 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > I recently read Altera Stratix II, III and IV device handbook and
> > > > > > found its 3-bit addition circuit is really a genius invention. But I
> > > > > > was surprised to find that Altera patent application "Logic Cell
> > > > > > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003 has
> > > > > > not been approved to be a patent so far today, even though manyAltera
> > > > > > later patent applications based on the invention have been approved
> > > > > > for U.S. patents.
>
> > > > > > Is anyone knowledgable about the patent application willing to
> > > > > > transfer the patent application context to me and disclose why it
> > > > > > hasn't been approved as a U.S. patent.
>
> > > > > > My guess is it may never be approved by U.S. Patent Office to be a
> > > > > > patent, the reason is not its novelty violation, but its context
> > > > > > didn't disclose enough information about the 3-bit addition circuit, a
> > > > > > requirement for any patent application to be approved to be a U..S.
> > > > > > patent. At least those skilled in the art cannot get the idea what is
> > > > > > done within its circuit having an encircled '+' with 3 inputs and 2
> > > > > > outputs.
>
> > > > > > Altera another sister patent application "Arithmetic Structure is for
> > > > > > Programmable Logic Device" filed on Oct. 23, 2003 has the same fate.
>
> > > > > > Thank you.
>
> > > > > > Weng
>
> > > > > I don't know why Altera wouldn't disclose info on the structure being
> > > > > used in a device. *It is relatively inexpensive to reverse engineer a
> > > > > chip, so if it is not disclosed in a patent, it is not protected and
> > > > > is vulnerable to being copied.
>
> > > > > What exactly *does* the patent claim? *Maybe the design inside the
> > > > > circled + is not really novel and only the design around the circle is
> > > > > novel enough to be patented?
>
> > > > > In general, I think a three in put adder is *very useful*. *I've never
> > > > > seen such a circuit, I guess the carry chain has multiple bits, eh?
>
> > > > > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Hi Rick,
> > > > Here is a link to Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1 and page 43
> > > > shows the invention circuit:http://www.altera.com/literature/hb/...v/stx4_5v1.pdf
>
> > > > Why is it very useful? In the Stratix IV Device Handbook Volumn 1, it
> > > > describes two applications: multiplication and correlation function..
>
> > > > Any other applications? With multiplier hardware structure specially
> > > > introduced in FPGA, is multiplication circuit still used for
> > > > multiplication?
>
> > > Although they show the interconnections being used, they don't show
> > > the logic implemented in the LUTs. *The carry from one bit to the next
> > > is done with two signals each of which has the same weight. *As faras
> > > I can tell, this is just a pair of cascaded adders, the first done in
> > > the LUTs and the second done in dedicated hardware. *The only novelty
> > > is that instead of adding two inputs with one adder chain (the LUTs)
> > > and then adding the result to the third input with the dedicated
> > > hardware chain, they add all three input bits using the LUTs and feed
> > > both carry bits into the dedicated hardware chain which means the
> > > carry chain always uses the fast, dedicated hardware.
>
> > > Does that sound like a patent worthy invention to you? *I don't really
> > > know what is and what is not worthy of a patent. *But other patents
> > > "based" on this patent will not be affected by the validity of this
> > > patent. *Even if this patent is upheld, ***I*** could patent some
> > > additional feature that uses this design as a starting point. *I just
> > > can't build it without permission from the patent holder of the
> > > original design. *Still, this means he/she couldn't use my idea
> > > without my permission either.
>
> > > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Rick,
> > There are two novel points there:
> > 1. It transfers 3 adders into 2 adders which was described very clear:
> > nobody before had invented that point.
>
> No, it is not 3 adders using 2 adders, it is always just 2 adders.
> The only difference is that there is only one cascaded chain. *There
> are two carries between each bit of the adder, sort of like a
> "Propagate/Generate" style of carry, only one results in a chained
> delay calculation. *But I don't see any real advantage to that. *I
> think the real advantage of this circuit is that it takes advantage of
> the large, 6 input LUT by breaking it into dual 4 input LUTs... but
> wait, that is still wasting half the 6 input LUTs. *So it is really
> just an optimization of their particular architecture.
>
> The only possible novelty here is that they are doing this in an
> FPGA.
>
> > 2. Circuit is marked by circled '+' with 3 inputs and 2 outputs whose
> > internal structure wasn't shown.
>
> Yep, that is because that part is not very patentable, in my opinion.
> You don't put anything in a patent that is not patentable. *Anything
> you don't explain in a patent is not part of it.
>
> > 3. I am sure there may be more than 20 claims in the application as
> > Altera patent claim trandition goes.
>
> Sure, any patent attorney worth his salt is going to put as many
> claims in as possible. *If I understand correctly any claim can stand
> alone even if the others are struck down.
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Rick,
"No, it is not 3 adders using 2 adders, it is always just 2 adders.
The only difference is that there is only one cascaded chain. There
are two carries between each bit of the adder, sort of like a
"Propagate/Generate" style of carry, only one results in a chained
delay calculation. But I don't see any real advantage to that. I
think the real advantage of this circuit is that it takes advantage
of
the large, 6 input LUT by breaking it into dual 4 input LUTs... but
wait, that is still wasting half the 6 input LUTs. So it is really
just an optimization of their particular architecture.

The only possible novelty here is that they are doing this in an
FPGA. "

Thank you for your comments.

You are right. I realized it after I posed the message and re-read
other papers about 3:2 compressor and I didn't correct it myself.

On Jun 15, 9:41*pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 1:39*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:23*am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> > > patent application.
> > > It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
> > > "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> > > This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
> > > correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> > > Also, can you post the patent application number.
>
> > > - outputlogic
>
> > >http://outputlogic.com
>
> > Hi OutputLogic,
> > Thank you for your information.
>
> > I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
> > error information:
> > "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available.
> > The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
> > application
> > that is not yet available for public inspection."
>
> > I don't know why I got the error message.
>
> > 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
> > "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
> > Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
> > following website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>
> > Weng
>
> 7,394,287 is the patent number. *It works for me at the USPTO. *What
> is the number you are searching for?
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Rick,
I have tried to find the text and its drawings of patent application
"Logic Cell
Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003, US
application number 10/718968, but it must pay to get its context from
USPTO, even though it was in public domain about 6 years ago.

Can you help get the context and drawings from USPTO for me?

Weng

On Jun 16, 9:34*am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 15, 9:41*pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 1:39*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 9:23*am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> > > > patent application.
> > > > It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
> > > > "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> > > > This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
> > > > correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> > > > Also, can you post the patent application number.
>
> > > > - outputlogic
>
> > > >http://outputlogic.com
>
> > > Hi OutputLogic,
> > > Thank you for your information.
>
> > > I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
> > > error information:
> > > "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available.
> > > The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
> > > application
> > > that is not yet available for public inspection."
>
> > > I don't know why I got the error message.
>
> > > 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
> > > "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
> > > Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
> > > following website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>
> > > Weng
>
> > 7,394,287 is the patent number. *It works for me at the USPTO. *What
> > is the number you are searching for?
>
> > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Rick,
> I have tried to find the text and its drawings of patent application
> "Logic Cell
> Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003, US
> application number 10/718968, but it must pay to get its context from
> USPTO, even though it was in public domain about 6 years ago.
>
> Can you help get the context and drawings from USPTO for me?
>
> Weng

Where did you get the above info? That does not appear to be a valid
document number. It needs to have 11 digits where the first four
appear to be the year.
I searched on "Three Binary Words" in the title and came up with
nothing.

I did search on this for patents and found this one which I think is
interesting... maybe this is why the adder is just a plus sign with a
circle... 4,783,757. Note that the owner is Intel, not Altera.

Rick

Rick

On Jun 16, 8:51*am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 9:34*am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 9:41*pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 15, 1:39*pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 15, 9:23*am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> > > > > patent application.
> > > > > It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
> > > > > "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> > > > > This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
> > > > > correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> > > > > Also, can you post the patent application number.
>
> > > > > - outputlogic
>
> > > > >http://outputlogic.com
>
> > > > Hi OutputLogic,
> > > > Thank you for your information.
>
> > > > I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
> > > > error information:
> > > > "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available..
> > > > The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
> > > > application
> > > > that is not yet available for public inspection."
>
> > > > I don't know why I got the error message.
>
> > > > 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
> > > > "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
> > > > Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
> > > > following website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>
> > > > Weng
>
> > > 7,394,287 is the patent number. *It works for me at the USPTO. *What
> > > is the number you are searching for?
>
> > > Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Rick,
> > I have tried to find the text and its drawings of patent application
> > "Logic Cell
> > Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003, US
> > application number 10/718968, but it must pay to get its context from
> > USPTO, even though it was in public domain about 6 years ago.
>
> > Can you help get the context and drawings from USPTO for me?
>
> > Weng
>
> Where did you get the above info? *That does not appear to be a valid
> document number. *It needs to have 11 digits where the first four
> appear to be the year.
> I searched on "Three Binary Words" in the title and came up with
> nothing.
>
> I did search on this for patents and found this one which I think is
> interesting... maybe this is why the adder is just a plus sign with a
> circle... 4,783,757. *Note that the owner is Intel, not Altera.
>
> Rick
>
> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Rick,
I got the number from the patent "Programmable Logic Device Having
Complex Logic Blocks with Improved Logic Cell Functionality"
in its page 1 under "Other publications".
http://www.google.com/patents/about?...=0&as_maxy_is=

Here is an email I sent to USPTO for confirmation and its response:
Hi,
I want to research patent application"Logic Cell Supporting Addition
of Three Binary Words." U.S. Application Number 10/718,968, filed
November 21, 2003.

It should have been published long ago and in public domain.

Please tell how to find the patent application.

Thank you.

Weng

Hello

The status of the application is
93 /NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE MAILED -- APPLICATION RECEIVED IN OFFICE OF
PUBLICATIONS.
Thank you have a great day. Agent 31

I don't know what it means.

Weng

Weng Tianxiang wrote:
> On Jun 16, 8:51 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 9:34 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 15, 9:41 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jun 15, 1:39 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 15, 9:23 am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
>>>>>> patent application.
>>>>>> It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
>>>>>> "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
>>>>>> This database contains a complete history of the patent, including the
>>>>>> correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
>>>>>> Also, can you post the patent application number.
>>>>>> - outputlogic
>>>>>> http://outputlogic.com
>>>>> Hi OutputLogic,
>>>>> Thank you for your information.
>>>>> I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
>>>>> error information:
>>>>> "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available.
>>>>> The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
>>>>> application
>>>>> that is not yet available for public inspection."
>>>>> I don't know why I got the error message.
>>>>> 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
>>>>> "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
>>>>> Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
>>>>> following website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>>>>> Weng
>>>> 7,394,287 is the patent number. It works for me at the USPTO. What
>>>> is the number you are searching for?
>>>> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Hi Rick,
>>> I have tried to find the text and its drawings of patent application
>>> "Logic Cell
>>> Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003, US
>>> application number 10/718968, but it must pay to get its context from
>>> USPTO, even though it was in public domain about 6 years ago.
>>> Can you help get the context and drawings from USPTO for me?
>>> Weng
>> Where did you get the above info? That does not appear to be a valid
>> document number. It needs to have 11 digits where the first four
>> appear to be the year.
>> I searched on "Three Binary Words" in the title and came up with
>> nothing.
>>
>> I did search on this for patents and found this one which I think is
>> interesting... maybe this is why the adder is just a plus sign with a
>> circle... 4,783,757. Note that the owner is Intel, not Altera.
>>
>> Rick
>>
>> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Hi Rick,
> I got the number from the patent "Programmable Logic Device Having
> Complex Logic Blocks with Improved Logic Cell Functionality"
> in its page 1 under "Other publications".
> http://www.google.com/patents/about?...=0&as_maxy_is=
>
> Here is an email I sent to USPTO for confirmation and its response:
> Hi,
> I want to research patent application"Logic Cell Supporting Addition
> of Three Binary Words." U.S. Application Number 10/718,968, filed
> November 21, 2003.
>
> It should have been published long ago and in public domain.
>
> Please tell how to find the patent application.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Weng
>
> Hello
>
> The status of the application is
> 93 /NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE MAILED -- APPLICATION RECEIVED IN OFFICE OF
> PUBLICATIONS.
> Thank you have a great day. Agent 31
>
> I don't know what it means.
>
> Weng

I'm confused: the Google page you linked to has a "Download PDF" button
which gets you the full 19 page patient. There's also a link for "View
patient at USPTO" which takes you directly to the page for patient
number 7,394,287 at the USPTO site. So what is it that you're looking for?

Chris

Chris Abele wrote:
> Weng Tianxiang wrote:
>> On Jun 16, 8:51 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 16, 9:34 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jun 15, 9:41 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 15, 1:39 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 15, 9:23 am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
>>>>>>> patent application.
>>>>>>> It's not under the patent search, but under
>>>>>>> "http://www.uspto.gov" ->
>>>>>>> "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
>>>>>>> This database contains a complete history of the patent,
>>>>>>> including the
>>>>>>> correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
>>>>>>> Also, can you post the patent application number.
>>>>>>> - outputlogic
>>>>>>> http://outputlogic.com
>>>>>> Hi OutputLogic,
>>>>>> Thank you for your information.
>>>>>> I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
>>>>>> error information:
>>>>>> "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available.
>>>>>> The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
>>>>>> application
>>>>>> that is not yet available for public inspection."
>>>>>> I don't know why I got the error message.
>>>>>> 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
>>>>>> "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
>>>>>> Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
>>>>>> following
>>>>>> website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Weng
>>>>> 7,394,287 is the patent number. It works for me at the USPTO. What
>>>>> is the number you are searching for?
>>>>> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Hi Rick,
>>>> I have tried to find the text and its drawings of patent application
>>>> "Logic Cell
>>>> Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003, US
>>>> application number 10/718968, but it must pay to get its context from
>>>> USPTO, even though it was in public domain about 6 years ago.
>>>> Can you help get the context and drawings from USPTO for me?
>>>> Weng
>>> Where did you get the above info? That does not appear to be a valid
>>> document number. It needs to have 11 digits where the first four
>>> appear to be the year.
>>> I searched on "Three Binary Words" in the title and came up with
>>> nothing.
>>>
>>> I did search on this for patents and found this one which I think is
>>> interesting... maybe this is why the adder is just a plus sign with a
>>> circle... 4,783,757. Note that the owner is Intel, not Altera.
>>>
>>> Rick
>>>
>>> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Hi Rick,
>> I got the number from the patent "Programmable Logic Device Having
>> Complex Logic Blocks with Improved Logic Cell Functionality"
>> in its page 1 under "Other publications".
>> http://www.google.com/patents/about?...=0&as_maxy_is=
>>
>>
>> Here is an email I sent to USPTO for confirmation and its response:
>> Hi,
>> I want to research patent application"Logic Cell Supporting Addition
>> of Three Binary Words." U.S. Application Number 10/718,968, filed
>> November 21, 2003.
>>
>> It should have been published long ago and in public domain.
>>
>> Please tell how to find the patent application.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Weng
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> The status of the application is
>> 93 /NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE MAILED -- APPLICATION RECEIVED IN OFFICE OF
>> PUBLICATIONS.
>> Thank you have a great day. Agent 31
>>
>> I don't know what it means.
>>
>> Weng
>
> I'm confused: the Google page you linked to has a "Download PDF" button
> which gets you the full 19 page patient. There's also a link for "View
> patient at USPTO" which takes you directly to the page for patient
> number 7,394,287 at the USPTO site. So what is it that you're looking for?
>
> Chris

Ignore that post - I see now. The patient application that you're
looking for is referenced in the one you pointed to. (Note to self -
engage brain before pushing send.)

On Jun 16, 7:02*pm, Chris Abele <ccab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Weng Tianxiang wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 8:51 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jun 16, 9:34 am, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 15, 9:41 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 15, 1:39 pm, Weng Tianxiang <wtx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 15, 9:23 am, OutputLogic <evgen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> You can try to go to USPTO database and lookup the history of this
> >>>>>> patent application.
> >>>>>> It's not under the patent search, but under "http://www.uspto.gov"->
> >>>>>> "Patents" -> "view in PAIR" -> "public PAIR".
> >>>>>> This database contains a complete history of the patent, includingthe
> >>>>>> correspondence with patent examiners, etc.
> >>>>>> Also, can you post the patent application number.
> >>>>>> - outputlogic
> >>>>>>http://outputlogic.com
> >>>>> Hi OutputLogic,
> >>>>> Thank you for your information.
> >>>>> I had searched the website before I posed this message and got the
> >>>>> error information:
> >>>>> "Sorry, the entered Application Number "10/718968" is not available..
> >>>>> The number may have been incorrectly typed, or assigned to an
> >>>>> application
> >>>>> that is not yet available for public inspection."
> >>>>> I don't know why I got the error message.
> >>>>> 10/718968 is available from reference literature in the invention:
> >>>>> "Programmable Logic Device Having Complex Logic Blocks with Improved
> >>>>> Logic Cell Functionality", patent number 7,394,287, by Alera from
> >>>>> following website:http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
> >>>>> Weng
> >>>> 7,394,287 is the patent number. *It works for me at the USPTO. *What
> >>>> is the number you are searching for?
> >>>> Rick- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Hi Rick,
> >>> I have tried to find the text and its drawings of patent application
> >>> "Logic Cell
> >>> Supporting Addition of Three Binary Words" filed on Nov. 21, 2003, US
> >>> application number 10/718968, but it must pay to get its context from
> >>> USPTO, even though it was in public domain about 6 years ago.
> >>> Can you help get the context and drawings from USPTO for me?
> >>> Weng
> >> Where did you get the above info? *That does not appear to be a valid
> >> document number. *It needs to have 11 digits where the first four
> >> appear to be the year.
> >> I searched on "Three Binary Words" in the title and came up with
> >> nothing.
>
> >> I did search on this for patents and found this one which I think is
> >> interesting... maybe this is why the adder is just a plus sign with a
> >> circle... 4,783,757. *Note that the owner is Intel, not Altera.
>
> >> Rick
>
> >> Rick- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Rick,
> > I got the number from the patent "Programmable Logic Device Having
> > Complex Logic Blocks with Improved Logic Cell Functionality"
> > in its page 1 under "Other publications".
> >http://www.google.com/patents/about?...patent:7394287...
>
> > Here is an email I sent to USPTO for confirmation and its response:
> > Hi,
> > I want to research patent application"Logic Cell Supporting Addition
> > of Three Binary Words." U.S. Application Number 10/718,968, filed
> > November 21, 2003.
>
> > It should have been published long ago and in public domain.
>
> > Please tell how to find the patent application.
>
> > Thank you.
>
> > Weng
>
> > Hello
>
> > The status of the application is
> > 93 /NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE MAILED -- APPLICATION RECEIVED IN OFFICE OF
> > PUBLICATIONS.
> > Thank you have a great day. Agent 31
>
> > I don't know what it means.
>
> > Weng
>
> I'm confused: the Google page you linked to has a "Download PDF" button
> which gets you the full 19 page patient. *There's also a link for "View
> patient at USPTO" which takes you directly to the page for patient
> number 7,394,287 at the USPTO site. *So what is it that you're looking for?
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Chris,
You have to download full patent papers to get the idea that the
patent application "Logic Cell Supproting Addition of Three Binary
Words" has not been approved for last 6.5 years.

In the link I listed there is no the reference about the patent
application. When you download the patent 7,394,287, in its page 1
there is an item named "OTHER PUBLICATION". The first paper listed
under the item is the patent application "Logic Cell Supproting
Addition of Three Binary Words" which applied on November 21, 2003
from where I've learned that the "Logic Cell Supproting Addition of
Three Binary Words" has not been approved for last 6.5 years after I
searched for the patent application name through USPTO patent website.

Weng