Inductive digital isolator

Not true. ...on either end of the scale.

Such as Circuit Cellar.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net

Technical Disclosure Bulletin. ;-)

The Washington area Consultants Network group of the IEEE recently sponsored a "Patent" town hall discussion with a patent consultant, a patent lawyer and two representatives of the patent office. One of the things I learned was that a great way to establish prior art is to file a preliminary patent application. I don't recall the exact term used for this filing, so I may not have it correct, but it only costs $300 and clearly establishes prior art so that no one else can ever patent the idea. I think the "preliminary" filing expires in a year so you also can't patent it if you don't follow up within the year.

Rick

and maybe

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

Dnia 27-09-2012 o 17:03:20 legg napisa=C5=82(a):

I know the market. I have used iCouplers in my designs. I have even been= =

digging out the information how they do their work internally, to make =

sure my method was different. A pair of PICs can be "free", if you need = =

them anyways to do the other tasks on both sides of the link - in that =

case using an additional IC for isolation is always more expensive.

I also did some patent searching, but you need to remember, that no sear= ch =

can be complete. There may exist patents missed because:

1) they didn't show up in patent search engines, for whatever reasons; 2) they are filed, but not published yet; 3) there are so many patents to check, that the analysis is practically = =

non-feasible;

4) the patent in question may have been filed in a country you don't eve= n =

thought to check.

Ensuring non-infringement is hardly possible and in my case the search i= s =

more expensive than the expected revenue. Again, I would love to see the= =

whole patent system thrown to trash, to free myself from that kind of =

problems. As soon as I start to be afraid to implement my own independen= t =

invention, the purpose of that system is subverted.

Regards, ae

one

to

I suggest you use Creative Commons as well. It is reasonably funded and is capable of being proper "witness" should some nutter (patent troll) try to steal it.

?-)

napisa?(a):

area

not

to

True, but expensive.

?-)

art.

it

individual

patent

You are a registered member of the disorganized group now.

?-)

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

and maybe

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