- Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00864 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claims 1, 3–5, 7–9, 11–15, and 18–21 unpatentable because their scope did not require the buffer to store the specified information.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s argument as follows.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“misapprehended any argument. Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that our Decision was in error regarding independent claims 1, 3, 7, 18, and 23 because these claims have a different scope than claims 17, 22, and 24. As Patent Owner correctly noted, our construction of “dedicated USB connection” is “a USB connection that may include some shared physical communication path and includes a buffer for maintaining dedicated address, configuration and response information for the connection.” Dec. 33. Thus, a dedicated USB connection must include a buffer that is capable of storing/maintaining “dedicated address, configuration and response information” regardless of whether such data is actually stored/maintained therein.” slip op. at 3
Claim constructionPatents in suitUS 7,523,243 - Delphi Technologies, LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Dec 11, 2018 · IPR2017-00861 · APJ Daniel N Fishman · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving claim 25 unpatentable because its ACR data limitation did not distinguish its scope and the Board had not misapprehended or overlooked the controller argument.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s arguments below.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“party challenging the decision,” and, “[t]he request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed” in the record. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). III. DISCUSSION Patent Owner’s Request does not identify any arguments that we “misapprehended or overlooked” let alone “specifically identify” all such matters. Thus, Patent Owner’s Request fails to comply with our rules. Despite this failure of Patent Owner’s Request, we address the substance of Patent Owner’s arguments below.” slip op. at 2
NonePatents in suitUS 7,627,708 - Ebay Inc. / Alibaba.Com Hong Kong Ltd. et al. v. Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Oct 12, 2018 · IPR2016-01828 · APJ Kevin C Trock · IPR · Rehearing
Rehearing was granted in part: review was instituted on all challenged claims and grounds, but claims 16 and 28 were not shown unpatentable because their scope could not be determined without speculation.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted in part
“For the reasons explained below, we grant Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to the extent we (1) modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims, including claims 16 and 28, and all of the grounds presented in the Petition, including Ground 2; and (2) modify our Final Written Decision to include a determination with respect to claims 16 and 28. We deny, however, Patent Owner’s request for rehearing to the extent we decline to read claims 16 and 28 on the prior art.” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“In SAS, the Supreme Court held that a decision to institute under 35 U.S.C. § 314 may not institute on less than all claims challenged in the petition. SAS Inst., Inc., 1348 at 1359–60. In our Institution Decision, we determined that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would establish that at least one of the challenged claims of the U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 B2 is unpatentable. Inst. Dec. 23. Because of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SAS, we now modify our Institution Decision to institute on all of the challenged claims, including claims 16 and 28, and on all of the grounds presented in the Petition, including Ground 2, and we determine, in this Decision on Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing, whether claims 16 and 28 have been shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, to be unpatentable.” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)Not shown unpatentableNot shown unpatentable
“If our unpatentability analysis requires “considerable speculation as to the meaning and assumptions as to the scope” of the claims, In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962), the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art cannot be ascertained. See id.; see also BlackBerry Corp. v. MobileMedia Ideas, LLC, Case IPR2013-00036, slip op. at 19–20 (PTAB Mar. 7, 2014) (Paper 65) (citing Steele, 305 F.2d at 862–63 for the proposition that “the prior art grounds of unpatentability must fall, pro forma, because they are based on speculative assumption[s] as to the meaning of the claims” and reasoning that “an obviousness determination based on less than all of the claimed elements is speculative as to the meaning or scope of the claims”). In other words, “[w]ithout ascertaining the proper claim scope, we cannot conduct a necessary factual inquiry for determining obviousness—ascertaining differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art.” Id. at 20 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966)).” slip op. at 6
- Prior constructionPrior construction adoptedDecided for patent owner
“least one partition of said at least one secondary storage device through said secondary storage partitions window,” “means for manipulating said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window,” and “means for modifying said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window.” Ex. 101, 9:66–10:25. In related litigation, the district court found in its claim construction opinion that the ’400 patent does not provide structure corresponding clearly to the functions of these limitations. Ex. 1010, 49–61. We have reviewed and considered the district court’s analysis and findings and we concur with the district court’s conclusion. We are unable to discern structure in the ’400 patent that corresponds clearly to the functions recited in the “means for” limitations of claim 16. Claim 28 recites similarly “program code for configuring said at least one partition of said at least one secondary storage device through a secondary storage partitions window,” “program code for manipulating said virtual cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window,” and “program code for means for modifying said at least one cabinet record through said cabinet visible partition window.” Ex. 1001, 10:65–11:29. The district court also found that the ’400 patent did not provide structure corresponding clearly to the function of these limitations. Ex. 1010, 49–61. We have reviewed and considered the district court’s analysis and findings and we concur with the district court’s conclusion. We are unable to discern structure in the ’400 patent that corresponds clearly to the functions recited in the “program code for” limitations of claim 28.” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 6,690,400 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp.Rehearing grantedPTAB · Sep 27, 2018 · IPR2017-01188 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board granted Patent Owner’s rehearing request and authorized it to re-file its Sur-Reply by September 28, 2018.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“reply “as a matter of right,” and does not address explicitly whether a Patent Owner may file a sur-reply in a case that was instituted prior to the Trial Practice Guide Update. Because the Trial Practice Guide Update did not authorize Patent Owner to file its Sur-Reply “as a matter of right,” we are not persuaded that we erred in determining that Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply was unauthorized.” slip op. at 5
- Strike new argumentGranted
“Notwithstanding all of the above, and out of an abundance of fairness to Patent Owner, Patent Owner is authorized to re-file its Sur-Reply no later than Friday, September 28, 2018.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 8,650,591 - Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Jul 9, 2018 · IPR2017-01188 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, declining to retroactively deny institution or extend the statutory deadline for the final written decision.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“Patent Owner’s argument is not persuasive because it is predicated on the false assumption that, if we cannot determine the scope of a claim for § 112 reasons, then we must find it unpatentable under § 112. We are, therefore, not persuaded that we misapprehended or overlooked Cuozzo when denying Patent Owner’s request to deny institution retroactively or to terminate this proceeding at this stage, or that “good cause” exists to deny institution retroactively or to terminate on this record.” slip op. at 7
- Director reviewOther
“The standard operating procedure exemplifies some of the reasons for which the Chief Judge may expand a panel. PTAB SOP 1, 3 (§ III.A). For example, an expanded panel may be appropriate when “[t]he proceeding or AIA Review involves an issue of exceptional importance” or when “[c]onsideration by an expanded panel is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Board’s decisions.” Id. (§ III.A.1, 2). In this case, the Chief Judge has considered Patent Owner’s suggestion for an expanded panel, but has determined that an expanded panel is not warranted.” slip op. at 6
NonePatents in suitUS 8,650,591 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / Arris Group, Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Mar 28, 2018 · IPR2016-01007 · APJ Trevor M Jefferson · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter in its claim construction, obviousness analysis, or handling of reply evidence and argument.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Strike new argumentNew argument consideredDecided for petitioner
“on evidence and argument that Patent Owner objected to as being improper new reply arguments. Req, Reh’g 9–10. Patent Owner does not identify any specific evidence cited in the Final Written Decision that rely on improper new reply arguments from Petitioner. Patent Owner argues that we abused our discretion by authorizing it to” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner’s issue is based on a sentence in the claim construction analysis of “during Showtime” in the Final Written Decision that states, “[w]e are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s negative construction, which excludes initialization from normal communication.” The “not” in that sentence is a mistake. In an Errata mailed concurrently herewith, we correct that sentence in the Final Written Decision to read “[w]e are persuaded by Patent Owner’s negative construction, which excludes initialization from normal communication.” The construction in the Final Written Decision is consistent with our discussion that notes that “[t]he parties agree that ‘during Showtime’ is a term of art that encompasses normal communication, which follows the completion of initialization and handshaking, for known DSL standards and protocols.” Dec. 8 (citing PO Resp. 6–7; Reply 10; Kiaei Decl. ¶ 43). Our Final Written Decision also noted that “[t]here is also no dispute that ‘during Showtime’ is intended to distinguish initialization and training.” Dec. 9 (citing PO Resp. 7–8; Reply 9; Tr. 21:19–23:11).” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner also argues that we overlooked its argument, in its Preliminary Response, that it would not have been obvious to combine Milbrandt with ANSI T1.413. Req. Reh’g 6–7. We addressed this argument in our Final Written Decision and found it unpersuasive.2 Dec. 32–34. Contrary to Patent Owner’s arguments (Req. Reh’g 6–7), we addressed Patent Owner’s arguments and did not rely on impermissible evidence. Our Final Written Decision noted that Patent Owner’s argument did not comport with the express text of ANSI T1.413 and credited the Petitioner’s argument and evidence in support of the combination. Dec. 33–34 (citing Ex. 1011, 9:31–34; Ex. 1100 ¶ 38; Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 86–87; Ex. 1011, 9:31–34).” slip op. at 5
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,432,956 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / DISH Network, LLC et al. v. TQ Delta, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01020 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, finding no overlooked or misapprehended matter that would change its prior decision applying the prior art to the challenged claims.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“carrier phases.” Independent claims 13 and 20 similarly recite “scramble[s] a plurality of phases.” We adopted Patent Owner’s proposed construction in part by construing “scrambling . . . a plurality of carrier phases” to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” Dec. 6–9. We did not add to that construction “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts” because Patent Owner did not show why that additional language should be included for the broadest reasonable construction of the term “scrambling . . . a plurality of carrier phases.” Id. Patent Owner argues that our construction is overly broad because it encompasses adjusting the phases of every carrier in the single multicarrier symbol by the same amount. Req. Reh’g. 1–2. Such an adjustment, according to Patent Owner, would not reduce peak-to-average power ratio (“PAR”), which the parties and the panel all agree scrambling must do. Id. at 3–5. “The FWD misapprehends or overlooks that, under any proper construction, there must at a minimum be varying amounts by which the phases are adjusted within a single multicarrier symbol (i.e., from carrier-tocarrier) such that PAR is reduced.” Id. at 2.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“technique “will increase PAR” (Dec. 27–28), but does not characterize Shively as having a “high” or “increased” PAR.4 Our Decision relies upon page 28 of Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 12), which concedes that “Shively’s ‘spreading’ technique will contribute a small uptick in clipping probability.” Patent Owner does not dispute, in its Request for Rehearing, Shively’s technique increases PAR. With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that “there is no PAR problem presented by Shively” (Req. Reh’g. 13) and “the only PAR problem in this case relates to clipping” (id. at 14), we considered that argument and found it unpersuasive. Dec. 27–28. As we noted, “Petitioner’s reason to combine does not depend on the PAR increase exceeding some specific numeric threshold,” “there also is no dispute that equipment designed to handle a higher PAR can be larger, more expensive, and more power hungry than equipment designed to handle a lower PAR,” and, therefore, “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have been motivated to reduce PAR regardless of whether Shively’s technique resulted in clipping.” Id. In other words, as we explained in our Decision, Shively’s PAR need not result in clipping in order to motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art because we are persuaded such a person would have been motivated sufficiently to reduce PAR by the benefit of being able to use smaller, less expensive, less power hungry components.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,014,243 - Cisco Systems, Inc. / DISH Network, LLC et al. v. TQ Delta, LLCRehearing deniedPTAB · Feb 1, 2018 · IPR2016-01021 · APJ Sally C Medley · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Patent Owner’s rehearing request, leaving intact the final written decision finding the challenged claims unpatentable.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Patent Owner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“construction in part by construing “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals” to mean “adjusting the phases of a plurality of carriers in a single multicarrier symbol.” Dec. 8–11. We did not add to that construction “by pseudo-randomly varying amounts” because Patent Owner did not show why that additional language should be included for the broadest reasonable construction of the term “scrambling the phase characteristics of the carrier signals.” Id. Patent Owner argues that our construction is overly broad because it encompasses adjusting the phases of every carrier in the single multicarrier symbol by the same amount. Req. Reh’g. 2–3. Such an adjustment, according to Patent Owner, would not reduce peak-to-average power ratio (“PAR”), which the parties and the panel all agree scrambling must do. Id. at 3–6. “The FWD misapprehends or overlooks that, under any proper construction, there must at a minimum be varying amounts by which the phases are adjusted within a single multicarrier symbol (i.e., from carrier-to-carrier) such that PAR is reduced.” Id. at 2.” slip op. at 3
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“With respect to Patent Owner’s argument that “there is no PAR problem presented by Shively” (Req. Reh’g. 14) and “the only PAR problem in this case relates to clipping” (id. at 15), we considered that argument and found it unpersuasive. Dec. 30–31. As we noted, “Petitioner’s reason to combine does not depend on the PAR increase exceeding some specific numeric threshold,” “there also is no dispute that equipment designed to handle a higher PAR can be larger, more expensive, and more power hungry than equipment designed to handle a lower PAR,” and, therefore, “a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would have been motivated to reduce PAR regardless of whether Shively’s technique resulted in clipping.” Id. In other words, as we explained in our Decision, Shively’s PAR need not result in clipping in order to motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art because we are persuaded such a person would have been motivated sufficiently to reduce PAR by the benefit of being able to use smaller, less expensive, less power hungry components.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 8,718,158 - PTAB · Nov 14, 2017 · IPR2015-01802 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
Granted rehearing and held claims 2, 4, and 6 unpatentable as obvious over Rabinovich because the wireless-network limitation encompasses a connection through a wireless hub.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, grantedGranted
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. With this in mind, we address the arguments presented by Petitioner.” slip op. at 2
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub.” slip op. at 7
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successUnpatentableMotivation foundUnpatentable
“Ex. 1002, 3:41–49. Thus, the ’680 patent itself does not limit the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Moreover, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that our construction of “computer unit” requires limiting the recited “wireless network” to an ad hoc network. Specifically, dependent claims 2 and 4 each recite “wherein the at least one computer unit and the at least two data storage units are connected over a wireless network.” Dependent claim 6 recites a similar limitation. We construed “computing unit” to encompass any computing device. Dec. 6. We did not, as Patent Owner contends, “construe[] both the ‘computer unit’ and ‘data storage units’ as hosts” (PO Br. 3). Although our construction encompasses Rabinovich’s hosts, it does not require the recited “computer unit” and “data storage units” to be hosts. Moreover, even assuming that both units are Rabinovich’s “hosts,” dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 require only that they be “connected over a wireless network,” not “between” or “directly connected to each other,” as Patent Owner contends (PO Br. 3). Thus, we are not persuaded by Patent Owner’s contention that two hosts “connected over a wireless network” necessarily requires a wireless connection “between” two hosts. Id. Based on our review of the ’680 patent, we construe “connected over a wireless network” as broad enough to encompass a connection through a wireless hub. Because we determine that the “wireless network” recited in dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 need not be an ad hoc network, Patent Owner’s argument that Rabinovich’s replication method would have been unsuitable for use over an ad hoc network does not persuasively rebut Petitioner’s showing. Having considered the arguments and evidence of both parties, we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that dependent claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Rabinovich.” slip op. at 7
- ExcludeNot reached
“We decline to assess the merits of Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude. Even without excluding the identified evidence, we have concluded that Petitioner has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that claims 2, 4, and 6 are unpatentable. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Motion to Exclude is dismissed as moot.” slip op. at 8
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 7,904,680 - SK Hynix Inc. / SK Hynix America Inc. et al. v. Netlist, Inc.Rehearing deniedPTAB · Oct 30, 2017 · IPR2017-00730 · APJ Matthew R Clements · IPR · Rehearing
The Board denied Petitioner’s rehearing request, leaving in place the denial of institution on claims 1–5, 12–14, and 19–20 over Saito and Swain, and claims 3 and 13–14 over Saito, Swain, and Kim.
RulingsRehearing decision- RehearingRehearing, deniedDenied
“II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A party requesting rehearing bears the burden of showing that the decision should be modified. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The party must identify specifically all matters we misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. Id. When rehearing a decision on a petition, we review the decision for an abuse of discretion. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). An abuse of discretion may be indicated if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if the decision represents an unreasonable judgment in weighing relevant factors. See Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393 F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Arnold” slip op. at 2
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Not reached
“Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Paragraph 101 describes Figure 7. See id. ¶¶ 100, 101. Recognizing that the timing of signals DQ-Pre (between memory controller and data buffer 300 on connectors 120) and the timing of signals DQ-Post (between data buffer 300 and memory chips 200 on data lines L1 or L2) is “off” because “data DQ is buffered by the data register buffer 300,” Saito teaches that “it is required to perform a timing adjustment between the memory chips 200 and the data register buffer 300 and a timing adjustment between the data register buffer 300 and the memory controller in a separate manner.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. This paragraph, therefore, does not teach that retiming from CL=5 to CL=6 is based on “time intervals from the leveling operations,” as Petitioner contends. Req. Reh’g 7. To the contrary, it explicitly teaches the necessity of a “separate manner” for adjusting timing between a data buffer and memory chip (i.e., for “signals received by the each respective buffer circuit during a memory write operation,” as recited in claim 1) and adjusting timing between a data buffer and a memory controller (i.e., for “transmission of a respective set of read data signals received from the respective group of memory devices,” as recited in claim 1).” slip op. at 4
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot reached
“We disagree. Neither paragraph teaches that the re-timing from CL=5 to CL=6 is “based on signals received by the each respective buffer circuit during a memory” read or write “operation,” as required by the claims. Paragraph 101 of Saito is reproduced below. Although the data DQ-Pre and the data DQ-Post have the same content, because the data DQ is buffered by the data register buffer 300, the timing is off between the data DQ-Pre and the data DQ-Post. The same is true for a relationship between the data strobe signal DQS-Pre and the data strobe signal DQS-Post. Therefore, in the present embodiment, it is required to perform a timing adjustment between the memory chips 200 and the data register buffer 300 and a timing adjustment between the data register buffer 300 and the memory controller in a separate manner. Details on the timing adjustments will be described later. Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. Paragraph 101 describes Figure 7. See id. ¶¶ 100, 101. Recognizing that the timing of signals DQ-Pre (between memory controller and data buffer 300 on connectors 120) and the timing of signals DQ-Post (between data buffer 300 and memory chips 200 on data lines L1 or L2) is “off” because “data DQ is buffered by the data register buffer 300,” Saito teaches that “it is required to perform a timing adjustment between the memory chips 200 and the data register buffer 300 and a timing adjustment between the data register buffer 300 and the memory controller in a separate manner.” Ex. 1005 ¶ 101. This paragraph, therefore, does not teach that retiming from CL=5 to CL=6 is based on “time intervals from the leveling operations,” as Petitioner contends. Req. Reh’g 7. To the contrary, it explicitly teaches the necessity of a “separate manner” for adjusting timing between a data buffer and memory chip (i.e., for “signals received by the each respective buffer circuit during a memory write operation,” as recited in claim 1) and adjusting timing between a data buffer and a memory controller (i.e., for “transmission of a respective set of read data signals received from the respective group of memory devices,” as recited in claim 1).” slip op. at 3
- Strike new argumentNew argument disregardedDenied
“These arguments were not in the Petition so we could not have misapprehended or overlooked them. To the extent that Petitioner is arguing that these paragraphs of our Decision indicate a misapprehension of what was argued in the Petition, we disagree. Specifically, we are unpersuaded by Petitioner’s contention that Saito’s teaching to use time A to time reception of read data by “input buffer circuit INB and the like” (Ex. 1005 ¶ 149) teaches using that same interval “to time transmission” of read data, as claimed, merely because data is received by that input buffer circuit before, at some later point, being transmitted to the memory controller. Req. Reh’g. 8–9. We also are not persuaded that Saito’s use of “and the like” extends to the timing of the output of read data from buffer 300 in the manner argued. Req. Reh’g 9–11. This argument is particularly unpersuasive because, as our Decision points out (Dec. 13–14), Saito discloses an alternative to timing the output of read data from data buffer 300, which is a read leveling operation by the memory controller. Thus, although “Petitioner does not rely on those data buffer-memory controller operations for any of its arguments” (Req. Reh’g 13), they are nevertheless relevant because they corroborate that Saito does not teach its data buffer 300 using a time interval “based on signals received by [it]” for the purpose of “tim[ing] transmission of a respective set of read data signals.”” slip op. at 5
§ 103 obviousnessPatents in suitUS 9,128,632
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.