1,720,956 research outputs found
T-junction resonant modulators and detectors in CMOS
No full textThesis: M. Eng., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, 2016.This electronic version was submitted by the student author. The certified thesis is available in the Institute Archives and Special Collections.Cataloged from student-submitted PDF version of thesis.Includes bibliographical references (pages 128-131).Design of optical modulators and detectors is investigated. A new design idea is proposed for optical modulators - T-junction. The T-junction allows to decouple the Extinction Ratio from the Bandwidth and to optimize each separately. Initial T-junction modulator provides an increase in bandwidth - 13 GHz versus 3 GHz, for the previous designs. An analytical model is created and is verified against the experimental data of the T-junctions. The model is then used to optimize the modulators and to achieve a design operating at above 35 GHz. The bandwidth increase with optical intensity is investigated in detectors. The unusual behavior is reproduced in Sentaurus. The severe depletion of the N and P regions is found to be responsible for the bandwidth variations. Increasing the doping of the P and N regions proves to successfully tackle the problem.by Dinis Cheian.M. Eng
High-speed modulator with interleaved junctions in zero-change CMOS photonics
Full text linkA microring depletion modulator is demonstrated with T-shaped lateral p-n junctions used to realize efficient modulation while maximizing the RC limited bandwidth. The device having a 3 dB bandwidth of 13 GHz has been fabricated in a standard 45 nm microelectronics CMOS process. The cavity has a linewidth of 17 GHz and an average wavelength-shift of 9 pm/V in reverse-bias conditions.United States. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Award HR0011-11-C-0100)United States. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Contract HR0011-11-9-0009
I See Dead Patents: How Bugs in the Patent System Keep Expired Patents Alive
Full text linkOne of the most important days in the life of a patent is the day it dies.
The moment a patent dies, the patent owner loses her monopoly over her invention, ending the stream of income generated by that patent. Without an enforceable patent to protect the invention, the competitors and public can freely buy and sell copycat products that compete with the patent owner’s. Consumers reap the rewards in the form of more options and lower prices.
Normally, those potential competitors must wait exactly twenty years from the date the patent application is filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”). But if a patent owner is lucky, her competitors may wait even longer. The Patent Office may extend the life of a patent to compensate for certain delays in processing the application. Such an extension, known as a Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”), is automatically calculated by computer software administered by the agency. But that software makes mistakes. Because the Patent Office will not double-check the computer’s calculations—unless the patent owner asks it to—those mistakes are rarely discovered. These skewed incentives lead to excessive PTA that exclusively benefits the patent owners. In some industries, such as pharmaceuticals, every additional day of patent life can result in millions of dollars of profit for the patent owner— profits that they may not be entitled to by law—and can delay the collapse of the price of the patented drug. It is little surprise that fierce litigation ensues over even a single day of patent life.
This Article exposes those software mistakes and their impact for the first time. In this Article, based on my original analysis of the Patent Office’s data, I identify two previously undiscovered software bugs, observed in more than 27,000 patents. I demonstrate how these bugs result in excessive PTA of, sometimes, 60–90 days. Because there are undoubtedly more than the two identified ways in which the software can err, I recommend that patent litigators start routinely double-checking the PTA in order to save their clients millions in patent infringement damages. Entities seeking approval of generic drugs should similarly take note of these bugs as they may impact the date on which they need to file their application with the Food & Drug Administration. I also propose regulatory changes that would allow the Patent Office to improve the software by crowdsourcing the identification of bugs. Finally, I recommend a statutory change that would minimize the number of patents with excessive PTA
Recommended from our members
I See Dead Patents: How Bugs in the Patent System Keep Expired Patents Alive
No full textOne of the most important days in the life of a patent is the day it dies.
The moment a patent dies, the patent owner loses her monopoly over her invention, ending the stream of income generated by that patent. Without an enforceable patent to protect the invention, the competitors and public can freely buy and sell copycat products that compete with the patent owner’s. Consumers reap the rewards in the form of more options and lower prices.
Normally, those potential competitors must wait exactly twenty years from the date the patent application is filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”). But if a patent owner is lucky, her competitors may wait even longer. The Patent Office may extend the life of a patent to compensate for certain delays in processing the application. Such an extension, known as a Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”), is automatically calculated by computer software administered by the agency. But that software makes mistakes. Because the Patent Office will not double-check the computer’s calculations—unless the patent owner asks it to—those mistakes are rarely discovered. These skewed incentives lead to excessive PTA that exclusively benefits the patent owners. In some industries, such as pharmaceuticals, every additional day of patent life can result in millions of dollars of profit for the patent owner— profits that they may not be entitled to by law—and can delay the collapse of the price of the patented drug. It is little surprise that fierce litigation ensues over even a single day of patent life.
This Article exposes those software mistakes and their impact for the first time. In this Article, based on my original analysis of the Patent Office’s data, I identify two previously undiscovered software bugs, observed in more than 27,000 patents. I demonstrate how these bugs result in excessive PTA of, sometimes, 60–90 days. Because there are undoubtedly more than the two identified ways in which the software can err, I recommend that patent litigators start routinely double-checking the PTA in order to save their clients millions in patent infringement damages. Entities seeking approval of generic drugs should similarly take note of these bugs as they may impact the date on which they need to file their application with the Food & Drug Administration. I also propose regulatory changes that would allow the Patent Office to improve the software by crowdsourcing the identification of bugs. Finally, I recommend a statutory change that would minimize the number of patents with excessive PTA
“Absolute and Arbitrary”: How the Supreme Court’s Certiorari Power Violates the Nondelegation Doctrine
Full text linkThe Exceptions Clause of Article III of the Constitution is clear that “Congress” “shall make” the rules prescribing the Court’s “appellate jurisdiction.” And so Congress did for almost 150 years. But in the twentieth century, Congress delegated its power to the Supreme Court in the form of—as Chief Justice Taft demanded—”absolute and arbitrary” discretion to pick its appellate cases. Today, under the resulting certiorari regime, the Court enjoys that unbridled discretion in selecting its cases.
Because Congress delegated its power to the Court without articulating “an intelligible principle,” certiorari jurisdiction violates the nondelegation doctrine and is unconstitutional. This Article is the first to advance this bold and novel claim. In addition to its constitutional argument, the Article sets forth a roadmap for litigants to challenge the certiorari process.
This Article first provides an overview of numerous facets of the doctrine as it has developed to demonstrate that, whatever the mode of analysis, the doctrine applies regardless of the branch to which Congress is delegating. It then examines the Exceptions Clause, which reserves exclusively to Congress the power to regulate the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Because Congress has this power, it has a duty to articulate an intelligible principle in delegating away that power—yet it plainly did not.
In addition to calling attention to an important, continuing constitutional violation, this Article also aims to add to the current field of scholarship, which focuses on delegations to the Executive Branch. This Article aims to reinvigorate the discussion surrounding the nondelegation doctrine, including the discussion of delegations among other branches—in both directions
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Full text linkWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Full text linkWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
- …
