Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Prior work Message-ID: <21636@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 16 May 91 09:35:34 GMT References: <1991May15.194658.17376@qualcomm.com> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 28 In article <1991May15.194658.17376@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > For those looking for prior work in the Hayes case, this comes from > comp.dcom.telecom: > > > The patent upheld is on the method of notifying the DCE equipment that > > the next data arriving should be treated as a command to the DCE, as > > opposed to data to be transmitted to the far end; that is, switching > > to command mode. > > You mean kinda like one tells an X.25 PAD (i.e. Telenet et al.) to drop to > command mode from data mode, > > "@" > > Seeing as the above and similar uses have been in use since the '70s, > how did our friends from Norcross manage to patent it? Well, if can be documented that it works exactly that way and predates the Hayes implementation, it sure sounds like a good case for prior art in using timing guardbands to enable/disable sensing of command mode escapes. It should blow Hayes out of the water, but who knows these days... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)