Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1520
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`
`1010
`
`1111
`
`1212
`
`1313
`
`1414
`
`1515
`
`1616
`
`1717
`
`1818
`
`1919
`
`2020
`
`2121
`
`2222
`
`2323
`
`2424
`
`2525
`
`2626
`
`2727
`
`2828
`
`United States District Court
`Central District of California
`
`Case No. 8:13-cv-01535-ODW(JEMx)
`
`CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`[59]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PROGRESSIVE SEMICONDUCTOR
`SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`QUALCOMM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`This is a patent-infringement suit involving memory in semiconductor devices,
`and specifically relates to an improved circuit design for such memory. Plaintiff
`Progressive Semiconductor Solutions, LLC. (“Progressive”) asserts U.S. Patent
`Nos. 6,473,349 (“the ’349 Patent”) and 6,862,208 (“the ’208 Patent”) against
`Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (“Qualcomm”). The constructions of five terms across
`the ’349 and ’208 Patents remain in dispute.
`II. BACKGROUND
`Progressive is the owner of the ’349 Patent titled “Cascode sense AMP and
`column select circuit and method of operation,” and the ’208 Patent titled “Memory
`device with sense amplifier and self-timed latch.” (SAC ¶¶ 7–8.)
`
`Qualcomm Exhibit 1014
`IPR Petition - USP 6,862,208
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:1521
`
`
`
`On September 30, 2014, Progressive brought a patent-infringement suit against
`Defendants Marvell Semiconductor Inc. and Qualcomm Technologies Inc. (ECF
`No. 1.) On March 3, 2014, the Court severed the action under 35 U.S.C. § 299. (ECF
`No. 45.) Progressive filed an amended complaint against Qualcomm (ECF No. 46),
`and a new civil action against Marvell, Progressive Semiconductor Solutions LLC v.
`Marvell Semiconductor, Case No. 8:14-cv-00330-ODW-JEM (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21,
`2014).
`The two suits were coordinated for all purposes except trial. On August 6,
`2014, the parties filed their final amended joint claim chart. (ECF No. 83.) The
`parties dispute the construction of five terms: (1) “the amplifier being controlled by
`the sense enable signal and being made operative only when the pair of pass
`transistors are made nonconductive by the sense enable signal” (’349 Patent); (2) “in
`response to a sense enable signal” (’349 Patent); (3) “sense enable signal” (’208
`Patent); (4) “at about the same time as the assertion of the sense enable signal” (’208
`Patent); (5) “storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal only in response
`to the amplified data signal”/“latching the data in response to only the amplified data
`signal” (’208 Patent). (Id.)
`On August 11, 2014, the Court held a consolidated claim-construction hearing.
`(ECF No. 87.) The parties informed the Court that a settlement had been reached
`between Progressive and Marvell. On August 21, 2014, Progressive filed a
`Stipulation to Dismiss Marvell from the action. Marvell, Case No. 8:14-cv-00330-
`ODW-JEM, ECF No. 78. The Court construes the disputed terms below.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`The purpose of claim construction is to determine the meaning and scope of the
`patent claims alleged to be infringed. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
`Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Claim construction is a question of
`law to be decided by the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967,
`/ / /
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:1522
`
`
`
`979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In determining the proper construction of a claim, the Court
`reviews both intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, placing emphasis on the former.
`A. Intrinsic Evidence
`The court begins with intrinsic evidence of claim meaning—which consists of
`the claim language, patent specification, and, if in evidence, prosecution history.
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Vitronics Corp. v.
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`The Court must always begin with an examination of the claim language itself.
`August Tech. Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 655 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`(“The claims define the scope of the right to exclude; the claim construction inquiry,
`therefore, begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the claim.”). Claim
`language is paramount; the other intrinsic and extrinsic evidence—while valuable—
`cannot be utilized to rewrite the claim language. SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV
`Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`The terms used in the claims are generally given their “ordinary and customary
`meaning.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. This “ordinary and customary meaning” is the
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”) in question
`at the time of the invention. Id. The POSITA “is deemed to read the claim term not
`only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in
`the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.
`A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term
`unless the patentee (1) sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or
`(2) disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during
`prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony Comp. Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed.
`Cir. 2012).
`The specification is “always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis.”
`Markman, 52 F.3d at 978. “[T]he specification may reveal a special definition given
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:1523
`
`
`
`to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise
`possess. In such cases, the inventor's lexicography governs.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1316. But the Court must be wary of “improperly importing a limitation from the
`specification into the claims.” Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, 653 F.3d 1296, 1305
`(Fed. Cir. 2011).
`The Court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history. The prosecution
`history encompasses the complete record of the proceedings before the PTO,
`including the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Id. The
`prosecution history provides evidence about how the PTO and the inventor understood
`the invention. Id. But “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing
`negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that
`negotiation, it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for
`claim construction purposes.” Id.
`B. Extrinsic evidence
`Courts may also rely on extrinsic evidence to better understand the underlying
`technology and to determine what a POSITA would understand the claim terms to
`mean. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Extrinsic evidence “consists of all evidence
`external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert testimony, dictionaries,
`and learned treatises.” Id. at 1317. But while extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is
`“unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered
`in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319. Thus, it is less significant than
`intrinsic evidence. Id.
`
`IV. DISCUSSION
`The patents at issue address memory within a semiconductor chip, and more
`particularly, novel circuit designs and methods for accessing that memory in a manner
`that increases speed and reliability, while reducing power consumption of the chip.
`To understand the patents, some background information is useful.
`/ / /
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:1524
`
`
`
`A. Background of the inventions
`Qualcomm sells semiconductor chips referred to as integrated circuits. The
`data stored on the chips is in SRAM. SRAM data is stored in tiny circuits, called
`memory cells, which collectively form a memory array. (ECF No. 75, Ex. A.) Data is
`accessed via unique addresses assigned to the individual memory cells, which are
`organized into rows and columns. (Id.) Thus, a memory cell’s address consists of a
`row and column address part. (Id.) “Wordlines” run along the rows of the memory
`while “bit lines” run up and down. (Id.) Each memory cell is associated with a
`wordline and two “complementary” bit lines, and each set of complementary bit lines
`is connected to a sense amplifier. (Id.)
`The electric signal held in the memory cells is very small. (Id.) The signal is
`read as two complementary or “differential” signals that each have different voltage
`values. (Id.) The differential signals that appear on the bit lines collectively represent
`a single bit of logical information—either 0 or 1. (Id.) But because the voltage
`differences involved are so small, a special “sense amplifier” circuit is employed to
`detect and amplify the differential signals. (Id.) The retrieved bit (0 or 1) from the
`selected memory cell is then stored in a storage device called a “latch” for later use.
`(Id.)
`
`A transistor is commonly used as an electronic switch. (Id.) Pass transistors
`may be used to construct an “isolation circuit,” because when the transistors are turned
`“off,” they serve to “isolate” one part of the circuit (for example, the data paths) from
`another part of the circuit (for example, the sense amplifier). (Id.) The pass
`transistors allow variable signals to pass and travel to the sense amplifier when they
`are conductive; signals cannot travel to the sense amplifier when the pass transistors
`are nonconductive. (Id.)
`The ’349 Patent is directed to sense amplifier circuitry used in RAM. The
`patent discloses configurations of sense amplifier circuitry that avoid drawing excess
`charge from the bit lines.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:1525
`
`
`
`The ’208 Patent is also directed to amplifying circuitry for use in RAMs. (’208
`Patent 1:5–13.) The patent discloses an isolation circuit and a self-timed latch. The
`self-timed latch does not require a clock signal. (Id. 3:28–32.) Rather, its timing is
`determined by the incoming data signals generated by the sense amplifier. (Id.)
`Both patents explain that the designs decrease the chips’ size and power
`consumption while increasing the speed and power.
`B. Disputed claim terms of the ’349 Patent
`
`PLAINTIFF’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`Plain meaning, except
`as to “operative” and
`“sense enable signal”
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`“the sense enable signal
`simultaneously activates
`the amplifier and turns off
`the pair of pass transistors”
`
`CLAIM TERM
`1. “the amplifier being
`controlled by the
`sense enable signal
`and being made
`operative only when
`the pair of pass
`transistors are made
`nonconductive by
`the sense enable
`signal”
`The parties request construction of an entire limitation—“the amplifier being
`controlled by the sense enable signal and being made operative only when the pair of
`pas s transistors are made nonconductive by the sense enable signal”—but only
`actually dispute the meaning of “operative only when” in the context of the limitation.
`Essentially, the parties dispute whether “operative only when” expresses temporal
`that demand simultaneous coordination of
`requirements
`the
`isolation and
`amplification processes by the sense enable signal.
`Progressive asserts that the claim language does not expressly or impliedly
`require that the sense enable signal “simultaneously activate” the amplifier and
`deactivate the pass transistor. Rather, Progressive aruges, the claim language is broad
`enough to permit either a simultaneous or sequential effect. Qualcomm argues that
`/ / /
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:1526
`
`
`
`because the sense enable signal is used to trigger processes at both the amplifier and
`the pass transistors, simultaneous coordination is necessarily required.
`Although the limitation contains technical terminology (e.g., amplifier, sense
`enable signal, and pass transistors) the disputed languge itself is a general-usage
`phrase that neither party asserts has any specialized meaning in the art.
`Beginning with the words of the claims themselves, the plain meaning of
`“operative only when” does not convey simultaneous coordination. Rather, it
`indicates a condition that must be met: the pass transistors must be nonconductive for
`the sense amplifier to function.
`The amplifier described in the ’349 Patent is efficient in power consumption.
`(See ’349 Patent 1:38–40 (“An objecive of memory sense amplifiers is to avoid
`drawing excess charge from a bit line subsequent to clocking the sense amplifer.”)).
`The patent explains that the amplifier is “operative” (amplifying a differential signal)
`only when it can avoid drawing excess charge from the bit lines. (Id. 7:42–45; 6:67–
`7:1 (“[The] sense amplifier 72 does not drain current from either bit line after
`sensing.”)) And the amplifier can avoid drawing excess charge from the bit lines only
`when the pair of pass transistors “are made nonconductive” by the sense enable signal.
`(Id. 8:37–41.) Although the claim language indicates the sense enable signal’s dual
`function—amplification and isolation—this does not dictate that these processes be
`synchronous, as Qualcomm urges.
`In support of its simultaneous-coordination argument, Qualcomm points to
`language in the specification that instructs when the sense enable signal is asserted, it
`turns on the amplifier and turns off the pass transistors. (E.g., ’349 Patent at 3:41–45
`(“When the signal SE is asserted, pass gates 30 and 31 are turned off. Transistor 39 is
`turned on when signal SE is asserted.”); 4:6-8 (“when sense enable singal SE activates
`amplifier 47, pass gates 44 function to disconnect amplifier 47 from data line pair.”);
`4:66–5:1 (“[w]hen the sense enable signal SE is asserted, P-15 channel transistor pass
`gates 70 and 72 are turned off.”).) But this language does not specify that the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:1527
`
`
`
`resulting effects (activation and deactivation) are simultaneous. The specification
`does not clearly redefine the conditional “operative only when” to impliclitly or
`explicitly require synchronicity. Indeed the extrinsic evidence calls into question
`whether the signal could arrive at two separate locations within a circuit at exactly the
`same time. (See ECF No. 80, Ex. 1.)
`“Operative only when” does not suggest, by itself, anything regarding
`simulatenous events. The specification discloses that a single singal—the sense
`enable signal—triggers both the amplifier and the pass transistors, but nothing in the
`claims, specification, or prosecution history indicate the applicant’s intention to
`mandate simultaneous coordination. Accordingly, there is no reason to deviate from
`the plain conditional meaning of the disputed language: the pass transistors must be
`nonconductive for the sense amplifier to function.
`PLAINTIFF’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`Plain meaning, except
`as to except again as to
`the technical term
`“sense enable signal”
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`“directly controlled by a
`[the] sense enable signal”
`
`CLAIM TERM
`2. “in response to a
`sense enable signal”
`
`The presumed meaning of “in response to” is the plain and ordinary meaning of
`the phrase. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “In response to” is a general-usage term that
`neither party asserts has any specialized meaning in the art.
`Progressive asserts that “in response to” should be given its plain and ordinary
`meaning. Qualcomm argues that, read in context of the claims and specification, the
`meaning of “in response to” is “directly controlled by.” Qualcomm argues that the
`specification provides for a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the sense
`enable signal and the pass transistor control. (See, e.g., ’349 Patent 3:41–42 (“When
`the signal SE is asserted, pass gates 30 and 31 are turned off.”); 4:6–8 (“[W]hen sense
`enable signal SE activates amplifier 47, pass gates 44 function to disconnect amplifier
`
` 8
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:1528
`
`
`
`47 from the data line pair.”).) Thus, Qualcomm asserts, the Court should adopt its
`proposed construction to make clear that the sense enable signal—and no other
`signal—controls the isloation process.
`Claim 1 of the ’349 Patent claims, in relevant part, reads:
`A sense amplifier comprising: a pair of pass transistors having first and
`second inputs respectively connected to a data path and complementary
`data path for receiving a differential data signal, the pair of pass
`transistors respectively connecting the data path and complementary data
`path at first and second outputs thereof in response to a sense enable
`signal, the first and second inputs of the pair of pass transistors are not
`electrically the same as the first and second outputs thereof when the pair
`of pass transistors are disabled by the sense enable signal . . . .
`(8:30–41 (emphasis added). Neither the claims nor the disclosure are ambiguous as to
`whether the data line inputs are dependent on any signal other than sense enable
`signal.
`The function of claim construction is to clarify and, when necessary, explain
`what the patentee covered by the claims. S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d
`1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Construction of the disputed language is unnecessary
`here, as the claim scope is clear. The plain meaning of “in response to” conveys a
`stimulus and an effect. Read in context of the claims and specification, that
`relationship is unchanged: the plain meaning of “in response to” would be understood
`to mean that the pass transistors react to the stimulus of the sense enable signal.
`Because the intrinsic evidence does not mandate a specialized definition of “in
`response to,” the Court declines to depart from its plain and ordinary meaning.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:1529
`
`
`
`C. Disputed terms of the ’208 Patent
`PLAINTIFF’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`Plain meaning; “a
`signal that enables the
`sense amplifier to
`function as intended”
`
`CLAIM TERM
`1. “sense enable
`signal”
`
`DEFENDANT’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`Plain meaning
`
`Although both parties agree that the plain meaning of “sense enable signal”
`
`applies, the parties dispute what that plain meaning is. Progressive asserts that the
`plain and ordinary meaning of sense enable signal is “a signal that enables the sense
`amplifier to function as intended.”
`Qualcomm argues that Progressive’s proposed construction is confusing and
`unnecessary because the full description of the sense enable singal’s function is
`already given in the claim. The Court agrees.
`The patent claims “a sense amplifier for amplifying a data signal from a
`selected one of the plurality of memory cells via the bit line to provide an amplified
`data signal . . . in response to asserting a sense enable signal.” (’208 Patent 7:5–8)
`(emphasis added).) Thus, the patent is clear that the function of the sense enable
`signal is to stimulate the sense amplifier to amplify a data signal. (See also id. 1:25–
`27.) Thus, the construction “function as intended” is superfluous because the intended
`function is clearly stated in the claim.
`The ordinary meaning of the “sense enable signal”—read in the context of the
`patent—is clear and the specification is consistent with that meaning. Accordingly,
`the Court declines to depart from the ordinary meaning of “sense enable signal.”
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:1530
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`Indefinite
`
`CLAIM TERM
`2. “at about the same
`time as the assertion
`of the sense enable
`signal”
`
`PLAINTIFF’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`“immediately before or
`immediately after the
`assertion of the sense
`enable signal, during a
`time span that is a
`fraction of the
`associated clock
`signal’s period”
`
`Claims 1 and 22 of the ’208 Patent recite that the memory cells are decoupled
`from the sense amplifier “at about the same time” as the assertion of the sense enable
`signal. (7:9–13; 10:23–25.) The parties dispute whether “at about the same time” is
`indefinite.
`For a patent claim to be valid it must “particularly point [] out and distinctly
`claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C.
`§ 112(b). The purpose of this definiteness requirement is “to ensure that the claims
`delineate the scope of the invention using language that adequately notifies the public
`of the patentee’s right to exclude.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417
`F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A claim is indefinite if, when “read in light of the
`specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, [the claims] fail to
`inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the
`invention.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014).
`Qualcomm contends that “at about the same time” is an indefinite term of
`degree, which cannot be construed, because no objective anchor is provided in the
`specification. The claim term at issue here—“about”—is a term of degree. Datamize,
`LLC, 417 F.3d at 1351. When the patentee uses a word of degree, the court “must
`determine whether the patent’s specification provides some standard for measuring
`that degree.” Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:1531
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1984). If the specification does not provide a standard for imposing a more
`precise construction of the term, the Federal Circuit has ruled that imposing a more
`precise construction would be error. See Playtex Prods., Inc. v. Procter & Gamble
`Co., 400 F.3d 901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc., 339
`F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`Here, the Court finds that the ’208 Patent specification provides a sufficient
`standard for measuring with reasonable certainty the boundaries of “at about the same
`time.” The specification provides a detailed discussion about the timing and sequence
`of the two relevant signals and corresponding events.
`Two signals are asserted “at about the same time:” (1) the sense enable signal—
`which is responsible for amplyfing the differential data signal—and (2) the isolation
`(CD) signal—which, when driven high, is responsible for decoupling the memory cell
`from the amplifier. Figured 4 shows the temporal relationship between the circuit
`signals, as a function of time:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows the operation of the sense enable and isolation signals over a
`period of time equal to three clock cycles.1 Towards the end of the first clock cycle
`
`1 The clock cycles are defined between the dotted lines.
`
`
`12
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:1532
`
`
`
`(highlighted in green), isolation signal CD is asserted and the sense enable signal is
`asserted (see red dots)—“at about the same time.” The timing of the two signals are
`“logically derived from the clock signal”2—a known point of reference. (Id. 4:4–7.)
`The patent explains that the sense enable signal should be asserted “[a]fter a
`predetermined period of time from when the CD signal is driven low at 405 . . . .” (Id.
`4:1–4. This “predetermined period of time” is determined by the POSITA based on
`the intended application (e.g., DRAM or SRAM). The description of Figure 4 states
`that at “about the same time that the SENSE ENABLE signal is asserted the CD signal
`is driven high to isolate the local data lines LDL 305 and *LDL 307 from the bit lines
`. . . .” ( Id. 4:9–12.)
`Figure 4 also shows the time span during which a differential data signal is
`generated (the time span during which one of the signal’s voltage is pulled down):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/ / /
`
`
`2 The clock signal is provided by clock circuitry external to the memory device. The clock signal is
`represented in Figure 5 of the ’208 Patent. (Id. 3:46–47.)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:1533
`
`
`
`Progressive has also presented extrinsic evidence that the term “at about the
`same time” is easily understood by a POSITA. The Federal Circuit has explained that
`although courts “have emphasized the importance of intrinsic evidence in claim
`construction, we have also authorized district courts to rely on extrinsic evidence, such
`as expert testimony.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1348 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`The opinion of an expert can illuminate the meaning of an ambiguous term of degree.
`See Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1353-54; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d
`1200, 1218 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
`Regarding “at about the same time” Progressive’s expert Dr. John Hayes
`testified that the specification explains to him—as a POSITA—how to design an
`integrated circuit like the claimed invention. (ECF No. 80, Ex. A.) Dr. Hayes
`testified that “it would not be difficult for a skilled artisan to sequence the signals in
`the desired manner [because] . . . the timing of the SENSE ENABLE and CD signals
`is based on the clock signal and is therefore a known point of reference. (Id.)
`Dr. Hayes also testified that because the patent provides a clear signal sequence—
`after a diferential data signal as been generated but before the sense enable signal is
`deasserted—and Figure 4 shows the time span during which the differential data
`signal is generated, a POSITA has sufficient data to design the circuit in accordance
`with the claim or to avoid infringement. (Id.)
`Qualcomm argues that Figure 4 does not provide a standard for measuring
`whether signals are triggered at the same time, but rather only illustrates that signals
`that are triggered at exactly the same time—as shown in the drawing—are triggered at
`“about the same time.” Qualcomm asserts that Figure 4 does not teach how far apart
`those signals can be triggered and still fall within the about-the-same-time scope.
`The Court does not agree. The’208 Patent teaches specific confines within
`which the the two signals should be asserted—(1) within a single clock cycle, (2) after
`a differential data signal has been generated, and (3) before the sense enable signal has
`been deasserted (driven low). Additionally, the written description explains that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:1534
`
`
`
`timing signals are logically derived from the clock signal. (’208 Patent 76:24–77:4.)
`The timing diagram provides all the data necessary for a POSITA to understand the
`boundaries of the claim to a reasonable certainty.
`The omission of a specific, quantifiable time period (e.g., “within 10
`nanoseconds”) within which the two events should occur is reasonable for this type of
`invention. Circuit designers require some flexibility and discretion to program the
`timing in accordance with the desired application. Thus, claiming events that occur
`within a narrow, specified window of time (a single clock cycle) and “at about the
`same time” is sufficinetly definite under § 112(b). The language “at about the same
`time” is properly construed as: “After a differential data signal is generated but before
`the sense enable signal is deasserted, occurring within a single clock cycle.”
`
`PLAINTIFF’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`Plain meaning
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S
`CONSTRUCTION
`“storing data . . . data signal
`only dependent on the
`amplified data signal;”
`
`“latching only dependent
`on the amplified data
`signal”
`
`CLAIM TERM
`3. “storing data
`corresponding to the
`amplified data
`signal only in
`response to the
`amplified data
`signal” / “latching
`the data in response
`to only the amplified
`data signal”
`Although Defendants purport to request construction of an entire limitation—
`“storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal only in response to the
`amplified data signal”—the dispute actually surrounds the phrase “only in response
`to.” The parties do not dispute the meaning of “only in response to,” but Defendants
`seek to replace the phrase “in response to” with “dependent on.”
`Qualcomm asserts that its proposed construction clarifies that plain meaning of
`“only in response to”—that no other timing signal can induce data storage. In
`/ / /
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 8:13-cv-01535-ODW-JEM Document 88 Filed 09/04/14 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:1535
`
`
`
`contrast, Progressive asserts Qualcomm’s replacement of “in response to” with
`“dependent on” is redundant and unnecessary.
`The presumed meaning of “only in response to” is the plain and ordinary
`meaning of the phrase. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. “Only in response to” is a general-
`usage phrase that neither party asserts has any specialized meaning in the art. The
`plain meaning of “in response to” connotes a stimulus and an effect, but is equivocal
`as to the exclusivity of that simulus. But the addition of “only” into the phrase
`eliminates the equivocality, clarifiying that it is singly the function of the designated
`stimulus that brings about the effect.
`Thus, the plain meaning of “only in response to” to a POSITA, read in the
`context of the claim language, is that data storage (effect) is exclusively in response to
`the the amplified data signal (stimulus). Because both parties agree that this is the
`meaning of the phrase, any further construction would be redundant. The plain and
`ordinary meaning of “storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal only in
`response to the amplified data signal”/“latching the data in response to only the
`amplified data signal” applies.
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons discussed above, the Court adopts the aforementioned
`constructions.
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`September 4, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` ____________________________________
` OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`