Is it just me or does anyone else think that being able to patent this "concept" is ridiculous? I'm wondering when we'll be seeing some company like Nike patent "Tying shoelaces with a closed loop control system using visual inspection"? Geeez... the patent system really needs to get a grip on reality. Matt Pobursky Maximum Performance Systems On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:18:55 -0400, M. Adam Davis wrote: > I don't think you'll have to worry too much about it. It seems that it > covers of a reconfigurable circuit on a PCB that doesn't change when > linked to a custom PCB assembly process and ordering process that does it > all automatically and on demand. > > But I'm no attorney... > > -Adam > > On 6/12/07, PicDude wrote: >> This is pretty neat, but I'm not clear on if the patent is for the >> ability to re-use pads for different components or if it's for their >> specific implementation. If the former, then I have prior art from at >> least a few years ago where I did this -- Vref replacing 2 resistors >> (was a voltage divider) to feed a PIC's Vref input. I could select >> either based on whether the product required a reference relative to >> Vdd or absolute (based on the sensor type). >> >> Cheers, >> -Neil. >> >> >> On Friday 08 June 2007 08:46, M. Adam Davis wrote: >>> The patent application for a the rabbitflex stuff is 20060195804, >>> filed September 21, 2005, Assignee Digi International Inc. As an >>> aside, I doubt the patent covers what you're trying to do. Just >>> wanted to give it as an example of other's doing what you're doing, >>> but on a much larger and more build-to-order way. >>> >>> I made a PDF out of the patent application so you don't have to wade >>> through TIFs and other inconvenient web interface issues. >>> http://ubasics.com/patapp20060195804.pdf >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> On 6/8/07, M. Adam Davis wrote: >>>> Provide the correct bill of materials for a given configuration for >>>> a given build, with component locations and rotation, and they will >>>> assemble it appropriately. >>>> >>>> They might care a little bit if the pads are too big or small, as >>>> inappropriately sized pads may lead to poor solder joints, but if >>>> you follow their Design For Manufacturing (DFM) rules then there >>>> shouldn't be an issue. >>>> >>>> The RabbitFLEX product >>>> http://www.rabbitsemiconductor.com/products/RabbitFLEX/largeView.shtml is ve >>>> ry interesting in this respect - if you get a chance to see one up >>>> close, do so. Each I/O is individually configurable by the end >>>> user during the ordering process, and based on what is chosen >>>> different components are installed in small cells. A given pad may >>>> accept one end of a resistor in one orientation, a transistor in >>>> another orientation, etc. I'm sure they've got a patent on some >>>> aspects of this that shows this close up with placement examples, >>>> but I can't find it at the moment. >>>> >>>> At any rate, your assembly house should not even blink at it. Just >>>> make sure your BOM is correct. >>>> >>>> -Adam >>>> >>>> On 6/8/07, PicDude wrote: >>>>> Hey all, >>>>> >>>>> Optimizing a really tight circuit and being able to drop even one >>>>> 0805 would be a noticeable relief. The board is setup for >>>>> various configurations (circuit variations). In one part of the >>>>> circuit, one configuration requires a SOT-23 voltage reference >>>>> (such as LM4040) and another configuration requires an 0805 >>>>> resistor. But never both. Actually, pins 2 and 3 of the SOT-23 >>>>> (the two pins that are on the same side of the SOT-23 package) >>>>> are the same signals that are on both ends of the 0805 resistor, >>>>> and I can actually fit the 0805 on the SOT-23 pin 2 and pin 3 >>>>> pads. Great, I can drop the 0805! >>>>> >>>>> But how do I handle this when I pass the board to a CM? Will >>>>> they willingly accept this placement, or throw it back as non- >>>>> standard? What if I overlap these two components on the board >>>>> layout? Ignoring layout-software warnings/errors, is this >>>>> acceptable practice? Final option is to create a special >>>>> component that I define are being able to hold an SOT-23 or 0805, >>>>> but not sure if this is enough to appease the board houses. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> -Neil. >>>>> -- >>>>> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >>>>> View/change your membership options at >>>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>>> Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: >>>> http://ubasics.com/house/ >>>> >>>> Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at >>>> http://ubasics.com >>>> >>>> Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/ >>>> >>> -- >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/ >>> >>> Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at >>> http://ubasics.com >>> >>> Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/ >>> >> -- >> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive >> View/change your membership options at >> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > -- > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/ > > Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com > > Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/ -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist