Inductive digital isolator

On 9/28/2012 10:53 PM, josephkk wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:15:52 -0700, miso<miso@sushi.com>  wrote:
>
>> On 9/24/2012 9:29 PM, Robert Baer wrote:
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:19 +0200, "Andrzej Ekiert"
>>>> <dspicant@tlen.pl>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg<invalid@invalid.invalid>   napisa?(a):
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application area
>>>>> may
>>>>> also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data
>>>>> transmission,
>>>>> so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> ae
>>>>
>>>> My method as well... keep it _art_, but _privately_ documented.
>>>>
>>>> I'm expert witness in a case right now where a heathen patented a
>>>> block diagram... science fiction, then is suing now that technology
>>>> has caught up with fiction :-(
>>>>
>>>>                                           ...Jim Thompson
>>>     To the best of my knowledge, one cannot patent a block diagram - not
>>> even as a design patent.
>>>     And design patents are essentially worthless since one minor aspect
>>> can be changed to generate a new design patent.
>>>     Crudely put, the shape of a paper clip cannot be patented in a way to
>>> protect its use; change the wiggle or bend here to make a different
>>> design and thus create competition that cannot be negated by
>>> "interference".
>>>
>>
>> The only thing that matters in the patent is the "claims" section.
>>
>> Incidentally, if you don't want someone to patent an idea but rather
>> have it open source, just patent it yourself and don't enforce the
>> patent. There is no better prior art than a patent with that prior art.
>>
> True, but expensive.
>
> ?-)

But for the purpose of the OP, you don't need to follow through on the 
patent, just filing establishes prior art.  A patent can be expensive to 
defend, but you don't need to defend it if you are just trying to make 
it available to all, you only need prior art to prevent someone else 
from patenting it.

Rick

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:19 +0200, "Andrzej Ekiert"
<dspicant@tlen.pl> wrote:

>Dnia 25-09-2012 o 00:17:39 Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid> napisa?(a):
>
>> Looks like you have re-invented the inductive proximity sensor :-)
>>
>
>Well, there were other inspirations as well. But the application area may  
>also matter - I don't think this was a known method for data transmission,  
>so it might have been patentable. Now it surely isn't ;-)
>
>ae

http://www.nve.com/Downloads/il71x.pdf
http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/ADuM5200_5201_5202.pdf
http://www.analog.com/static/imported-files/data_sheets/ADuM4160.pdf
and maybe 
http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/si8410.pdf

There are also a number of commercially available chipsets designed to
facilitate magnetic data coupling. I don't know how they compare in
price to a pair of PICs.

Your technique, however, may be original. If it works and saves you
money, use it.

Publication is always an alternative to patenting, but it doesn't
absolve you of the responsibility for patent searching, prior to
commercial use. You didn't mention that this was the case and in doing
so may be placing other implimenters at hazard.

RL