Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION; SONY ELECTRONICS INC.;
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB; AND
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2015-00158
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S PATENT OWNER
`PRELIMINARY RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................. 1 
`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONERS’ PROPOSED GROUNDS FOR
`REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 3 
`
`IV. THE PENDING PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF THE
`’121 PATENT PRESENT REDUNDANT GROUNDS ................................. 4 
`
`V. MEMORY INTEGRITY’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................... 10 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`“probe filtering unit” (claims 1, 16, 25) ................................................ 11 
`
`“states associated with selected ones of the cache memories”
`(claims 1, 16, and 25) ............................................................................ 14 
`
`1.  The claimed “states” refers to cache coherence protocol states ... 15 
`
`2.  A cache coherence protocol state is the current state of a data
`block in a protocol used to maintain the coherency of caches,
`in which a data block can only be in one current state at a
`time, and in which the current state can transition to a different
`state upon one or more triggering events or conditions ................ 16 
`
`3. 
`
`“states associated with selected ones of cache memories”
`refers to the cache coherence protocol state(s) of data block(s)
`which are stored in the selected cache memories ......................... 20 
`
`C. 
`
`“accumulate responses to each probe” and “accumulating probe
`responses” (claims 15 and 25) ............................................................... 22 
`
`VI. THERE IS NO REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD OF PETITIONERS
`PREVAILING AS TO A CHALLENGED CLAIM OF THE ’121
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 26 
`
`A.  Claims 1-3, 8, 15-18 and 25 Are Entitled To A Priority Date Of
`November 4, 2002 And Therefore Koster Does Not Qualify As
`Prior Art Against These Claims ............................................................ 27 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`B.  Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate That Koster Anticipates Claims
`1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-16 and 25 ................................................................... 32 
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`1.  Koster Does Not Disclose “Probe Filtering Information”
`“Representative Of States Associated With Selected Ones Of
`The Cache Memories” As Recited In Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-
`16, and 25 ...................................................................................... 32 
`
`2.  Koster Does Not Disclose “Accumulate Responses to Each
`Probe” and “Accumulating Probe Responses” As Recited In
`Claims 15 and 25 ........................................................................... 35 
`
`3.  Koster Does Not Disclose That “Each Of The Processing
`Nodes Is Programmed To Complete A Memory Transaction
`After Receiving A First Number Of Responses” As Recited In
`Claim 11 ........................................................................................ 36 
`
`4.  Koster Does Not Disclose “Temporary Storage . . . For
`Holding Read Response Data” As Recited in Claim 12 ............... 37 
`
`5.  Koster Does Not Disclose That “The Probe Filtering Unit Is
`Further Operable To Modify The Probes” As Recited In Claim
`14 ................................................................................................... 38 
`
`C.  Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 17-18 and 24 Are
`Obvious Over Koster Alone .................................................................. 40 
`
`D.  Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 19-23 Are Obvious
`Over Koster In View of Kuskin ............................................................ 40 
`
`E.  Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 15 and 25 Are
`Obvious Over Koster In View of Kuskin and Park ............................... 40 
`
`1.  The Petition Fails to Demonstrate That The Combination of
`Koster, Kuskin and Park Teaches All Of The Limitations Of
`Claims 15 Or 25 ............................................................................ 40 
`
`a.  The Combination of Koster, Kuskin and Park Does Not
`Teach “Probe Filtering Information Representative Of
`States” As Recited In Claims 15 and 25 ............................. 40 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`b.  The Combination of Koster, Kuskin and Park Does Not
`Teach All “Probe” Limitations Of Claims 15 and 25. ........ 41 
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`c.  The Combination Of Koster, Kuskin, and Park Do Not
`Teach “Evaluating The Probe With The Probe Filtering
`Unit To Determine Whether A Valid Copy Of The
`Memory Line Is In Any Of The Cache Memories” As
`Recited in Claim 25 ............................................................ 43 
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioners Failed To Show That A Person Of Ordinary Skill
`In The Art Would Have Been Motivated To Combine Koster
`With Park’s Delayed “Read/Write” Access Mode ....................... 44 
`
`F.  Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-
`18, and 24-25 Are Obvious Over Luick In View of Kosaraju .............. 45 
`
`1.  The Petition Fails to Demonstrate That The Combination of
`Luick and Kosaraju Teaches All Of The Limitations Of
`Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-18, and 24-25 ........................................ 46 
`
`a.  The Combination of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach “Probe Filtering Information Representative Of
`States” As Recited In Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-18, and
`24-25 ................................................................................... 46 
`
`b.  The Combination of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach “A Probe Filtering Unit” As Recited In Claims 1-
`3, 8, 11-12, 14-18, and 24-25 .............................................. 48 
`
`c.  The Combination of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach “Accumulate Responses to Each Probe” and
`“Accumulating Probe Responses” As Recited In Claims
`15 and 25 ............................................................................. 51 
`
`d.  The Combination Of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach “Evaluating The Probe With The Probe Filtering
`Unit To Determine Whether A Valid Copy Of The
`Memory Line Is In Any Of The Cache Memories” As
`Recited in Claim 25 ............................................................ 51 
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`e.  The Combination Of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach “The Probe Filtering Unit Corresponds to an
`Additional Node” As Recited in Claim 2 ........................... 53 
`
`f. 
`
`The Combination Of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach That “Each Of The Processing Nodes Is
`Programmed To Complete A Memory Transaction
`After Receiving A First Number Of Responses” As
`Recited in Claims 11 and 12 ............................................... 54 
`
`g.  The Combination Of Luick and Kosaraju Does Not
`Teach “The Probe Filtering Unit Is Further Operable To
`Modify The Probes” As Recited in Claim 14 ..................... 55 
`
`2. 
`
`Petitioners Failed To Show That A Person Of Ordinary Skill
`In The Art Would Have Been Motivated To Replace Luick’s
`Bus Architecture With Kosaraju’s Point-to-Point Architecture ... 56 
`
`G.  Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 19-23 Are Obvious
`Over Luick In View of Kosaraju and Kuskin ....................................... 58 
`
`H.  Petitioners Failed To Demonstrate That Claims 15 and 25 Are
`Obvious Over Luick In View of Kosaraju, Kuskin, and Park .............. 58 
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 60 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`Memory Integrity-2001
`
`Memory Integrity-2002
`
`Memory Integrity-2003
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC’s Initial Identification
`of Asserted Claims And Accused Products, served on
`Petitioners in Memory Integrity LLC v. Amazon.com
`Inc., et al., Nos. 1:13-cv-01795, -01796, -01802,
`-01808 (D. Del. served Oct. 13, 2014)
`
`Excerpts from D. E. Culler, J. P. Singh, and A. Gupta
`PARALLEL COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, pp. 279-280
`(1999)
`
`Sorin et al. , “Specifying and Verifying a Broadcast and
`a Multicast Snooping Cache Coherence Protocol,”
`IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED
`SYSTEMS, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 1-23(June 2002)
`
`Memory Integrity-2004
`
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary (10th ed. 1999)
`
`Memory Integrity-2005
`
`Excerpts from David A. Patterson, et al., COMPUTER
`ORGANIZATION AND DESIGN (3d ed. 2005)
`
`Memory Integrity-2006 U.S. Patent Application No. 10/288,347
`
`Memory Integrity-2007  U.S. Patent No. 7,107,408 to Glasco
`
`Memory Integrity-2008  U.S. Patent No. 7,107,409 to Glasco
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00535, Paper 9 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2014) ................................................. 9
`
`Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2014-00536, Paper 11 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2014) ................................................. 9
`
`Certusview Techs., LLC v. S&N Locating Servs., LLC,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69861 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2014) ................................... 23
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Tech., LLC,
`Case No. IPR2014-00454 ................................................................................... 54
`
`In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC,
`No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015) ......................................................... 5, 10
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC v. AutoAlert, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00222, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2013). ...................................... 45, 54
`
`Eiselstein v. Frank,
`52 F.3d 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
`IPR2012-00006, Paper 41 (PTAB May 10, 2013) ............................................... 4
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00292, Paper 15 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2013) ............................................... 9
`
`Olympus America Inc. et al v. Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00241, Paper 24 (PTAB July 28, 2014) .............................................. 50
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC,
`IPR2013-0088, Paper 13 (PTAB June 13, 2013) ............................................. 5, 6
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Philips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303(Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 10
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`In re Ratti,
`270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ................................................................................ 57
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp.,
`274 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Texas Instr. Inc. v. Vantage Point Tech., Inc.,
`IPR2014-01105, Paper 8 (PTAB Jan. 5, 2015) .................................................. 50
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................ 37, 38, 39, 44
`
`Transco Prods. Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc.,
`38 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .............................................................................. 27
`
`Wright Medical Group, Inc. et al v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2014-00354, Paper 10 (PTAB June 2, 2014) ........................................passim
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ................................................................................................... 50
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) .......................................................................................... 14
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) ...................................................................................passim
`
`32 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) ............................................................................................... 10
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) ............................................................................................... 26
`
`MPEP § 211.05 ........................................................................................................ 27
`
`MPEP § 2143.01 ...................................................................................................... 57
`vii
`
`
`
`

`
`Jeffrey Kuskin, et al., The Stanford FLASH Microprocessor,
`PROCEEDINGS OF THE 21ST ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
`ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, IEEE (1994) ........................................................ 3
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`S. Park, et al., Verification of Cache Coherence Protocols by
`Aggregation of Distributed Transactions, Theory of Computing
`Systems 31 (1998) ................................................................................................ 3
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Board should deny the present request for inter partes review of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121 (“the ’121 Patent”) for several reasons. First, the Petition’s
`
`multiple grounds are redundant of each other, as well as redundant of the petitions
`
`filed by the Petitioners’ co-defendants. Second, the Petitioners’ primary reference
`
`does not constitute prior art against most of the challenged claims given their
`
`proper priority date. Third, the Petition’s invalidity grounds rely upon incorrect
`
`claim constructions and inadequate inherency theories. Fourth, the Petition relies
`
`on obviousness combinations that fail to teach all limitations of the claims and that
`
`lack a proper motivation to combine the references. As expressed more fully
`
`below, the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that they will prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the Petition. Accordingly, the Board should deny the Petition.
`
`II. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`The technology of the ’121 Patent generally relates to maintaining the
`
`coherency, or consistency, between copies of information stored in caches of a
`
`multiple processor computer system. Ex. 1001 at 1:22-34. Processors often use
`
`small cache memories that the processor is able to read from and write to much
`
`faster than main memory. Id. at 1:26-44. Because each processor has a cache
`
`memory, multiple copies of the same data can reside in multiple cache memories.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Id. at 1:35-45. A problem arises when a processor attempts to change the data in
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`the cache memory of the first processor while at the same time another processor
`
`also attempts to change the value of the same data located in another cache
`
`memory because different values for the same data may result. Id. Cache
`
`coherency generally relates to techniques that maintain the consistency of the data
`
`stored in the processors’ cache memories. Id.
`
`In order to maintain consistency across the same data stored in more than
`
`one cache memory, messages can be sent between the cache memories when
`
`information in the cache changes. However, such messages can result in
`
`significant traffic. The ’121 Patent is directed at maintaining cache coherency
`
`while reducing the number of messages that need to be sent. Id. at 2:46-52. A
`
`probe filtering unit is connected to the various processing nodes and is configured
`
`to receive probes from the nodes. Id. at 2:52-56. The probe filtering unit uses
`
`information relating to the state of the cache memories in order to determine which
`
`nodes should receive these messages. Id. at 2:52-3:5. The ‘121 Patent thereby
`
`discloses a system that maintains coherency between the various cache memories
`
`while also reducing the number of messages that need to be transmitted. Id. 
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`III. SUMMARY OF PETITIONERS’ PROPOSED
`GROUNDS FOR REVIEW
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`For the Board’s convenience, below is a summary of the grounds for review
`
`proposed by Petitioners:
`
`A.
`
`Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-16 and 25: Anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,698,509 to Koster et al. (“Koster”);
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Claims 17-18: Obvious over Koster alone;
`
`Claims 19-23: Obvious over Koster in view of Jeffrey Kuskin, et al.,
`
`The Stanford FLASH Microprocessor, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 21ST ANNUAL
`
`INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, IEEE (1994)
`
`(“Kuskin”);
`
`D.
`
`Claims 15 and 25: Obvious over Koster in view of S. Park, et al.,
`
`Verification of Cache Coherence Protocols by Aggregation of Distributed
`
`Transactions, Theory of Computing Systems 31 (1998) (“Park”);
`
`E.
`
`Claims 1-3, 8, 11-12, 14-18, and 24-25: Obvious over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 6,088,769 to Luick (“Luick”) in view of U.S. Patent Pub. 2002/0073261
`
`(“Kosaraju”);
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`and Park.
`
`
`
`Claim 19-23: Obvious over Luick in view of Kosaraju and Kuskin;
`
`Claim 15 and 25: Obvious over Luick in view of Kosaraju, Kuskin,
`
`3
`
`

`
`IV. THE PENDING PETITIONS FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`OF THE ’121 PATENT PRESENT REDUNDANT GROUNDS
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`The Board has made clear that in order to ensure “the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding,” it will not institute inter partes review
`
`proceedings on cumulative or redundant grounds. Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of
`
`Columbia Univ., IPR2012-00006, Paper 41, at 11-12 (PTAB May 10, 2013). Thus,
`
`the Board has instructed parties that it will not “authorize inter partes review on
`
`certain unpatentability challenges . . . [where] the challenges appeared to rely on
`
`the same prior art facts as other challenges for which inter partes review had been
`
`authorized.” Id. To avoid dismissal of a proposed ground of unpatentability, a
`
`petitioner must “provide a meaningful distinction between the different, redundant
`
`rejections.” Id. Where multiple references have been cited for the same facts, it is
`
`not enough for a petitioner to argue that the cited references are not identical, or to
`
`“speculate[] that in certain publications an element may be more clearly set forth in
`
`one publication rather than another.” Id. Rather, a petitioner must adequately
`
`explain the difference between the references and “how this difference would
`
`impact the unpatentability challenge.” Id. This includes “articulat[ing] a
`
`meaningful distinction in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses with respect
`
`to application of the prior art disclosures to one or more claim limitations,” as well
`
`as “why [one reference] is more preferred for satisfying some elements, while
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`[another reference] is more preferred for satisfying some other elements.” Oracle
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-0088, Paper 13, at 5 (PTAB June 13, 2013).
`
`Notwithstanding this Board’s clear directive against submitting cumulative
`
`and redundant grounds, the present petition presents at least two and up to four
`
`grounds for each claim challenged. In particular, each claim is challenged by an
`
`anticipation or obviousness ground over Koster, as well as an obviousness ground
`
`over Luick. In addition, claims 15 and 25 are challenged on four separate grounds:
`
`alleged anticipation by Koster, alleged obviousness over Koster in view of Park,
`
`alleged obviousness by Luick in view of Kosaraju, and alleged obviousness over
`
`Luick in view of Kosaraju, Kuskin, and Park.
`
`Petitioners’ arguments against redundancy fall far short of the standard
`
`applied by this Board. For example, Petitioners’ only argument as to the non-
`
`redundancy of its Luick-based grounds is that “[a]ll of the grounds of invalidity for
`
`Luick . . . are based on . . . obviousness.” Pet. at 46. As a threshold issue, that is
`
`no excuse at all for claims 17-23, which are only challenged by Petitioners on
`
`obviousness grounds, whether over Luick or over Koster. Moreover, this cursory
`
`statement falls far short of Petitioners’ burden of “articulat[ing] a meaningful
`
`distinction in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses with respect to application
`
`of the prior art disclosures to one or more claim limitations,” as well as “why [one
`
`reference] is more preferred for satisfying some elements, while [another
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`reference] is more preferred for satisfying some other elements.” Oracle Corp.,
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`IPR2013-0088, Paper 13, at 5.
`
`As to claims 15 and 25, Petitioners argue that the grounds with Kuskin and
`
`Park are “somewhat better” than the grounds without Kuskin and Park because
`
`they allegedly teach “accumulation of a plurality of probe responses.” Pet. at 47.
`
`Even if that were true, that is hardly a basis for asserting four grounds for each of
`
`those claims. Indeed, Petitioners offer no explanation for asserting grounds based
`
`on both Koster and Luick for those claims—their obviousness versus anticipation
`
`argument does not apply since Petitioners are combining the references with
`
`Kuskin and Park. Similarly, Petitioners’ argument that the “the grounds without
`
`Kuskin and Park are ‘better in some respect’ than the grounds based on Kuskin and
`
`Park” because the “grounds without Kuskin and Park” do not add Kuskin and Park
`
`to the combination is also cursory and insufficient. Pet. at 46-47.
`
`Additionally, the present petition is one of five petitions for inter partes
`
`review challenging the ’121 Patent which are pending before the Board. The other
`
`four petition were filed by parties that are co-defendants to the Petitioners in
`
`pending litigations in District Court. IPR2015-00159, IPR2015-00161, IPR2015-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`00163, and IPR2015-00172. 1 The proposed grounds for review presented by
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Petitioners and their co-defendants are redundant and cumulative both within
`
`individual petitions, and across the petitions, as shown in this chart:
`
`
`1
`Notably, none of the petitioners in the ’159, ’161, ’163, or ’172 petitions are
`
`named as real parties in interest in the present petition. Nor are the present
`
`Petitioners named as real parties in interest in the four other petitions challenging
`
`the ’121 Patent. However, despite the affirmations regarding the real parties in
`
`interest, both sets of petitioners happened to assert the Koster reference as a
`
`primary prior art reference—even though Koster was not prior art of record in the
`
`prosecution of the ’121 Patent. It is possible that both sets of petitioners
`
`independently discovered Koster and independently decided to assert Koster as a
`
`primary prior art reference in petitions filed at nearly the same time. However,
`
`given that all of the petitioners are co-defendants in litigation, it is equally
`
`plausible or perhaps more plausible that both sets of petitioners cooperated to some
`
`extent in development of the present petitions. If that is true, then all of the
`
`pending petitions should be denied for improperly failing to disclose the correct
`
`real parties in interest in each petition. Paramount Home Entertainment Inc. v.
`
`Nissim Corp., IPR2014-00961, Paper 11 at 11-12 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2014) (citing 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Claim #
`\ Pet. # 1
`’158 Pet. 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4
`’159 Pet. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
`’161 Pet. 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1
`’163 Pet. 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
`’172 Pet. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0
`Total 6 6 6 2 2 2 1 6 3 1 6 5 1 4 7 6 6 6 8 8 6 8 6 6 7
`
`25
`24
`23
`22
`21
`20
`19
`18
`17
`16
`15
`14
`13
`12
`11
`10
`9
`8
`7
`6
`5
`4
`3
`2
`
`
`
`Together, the pending petitions present twenty-three grounds for review,
`
`involving fourteen distinct asserted prior art references in nearly three-hundred
`
`pages of briefing. Additionally, together, petitioners in the five petitions have
`
`presented this Board with over 2,100 pages of exhibits, including 139 pages of
`
`exhibit declarations. In total, these petitions ask this Board to make one-hundred
`
`and twenty-five determinations of whether a particular ground necessitates
`
`cancellation of a particular claim, an average of five grounds per claim. Plainly,
`
`the pending petitions jeopardize this Board’s goal to “secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`
`As noted in Patent Owner’s preliminary responses filed in the other four
`
`petitions, this Board’s rules against redundant and cumulative grounds cannot be
`
`avoided by filing multiple petitions against the same patent. When presented with
`
`“multiple challenges to” the claims of the same patent “across separate petitions,”
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`this Board has the discretion to “consider[]” the petitions “together.” Canon Inc. v.
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00535, Paper 9, at 19 (PTAB Sept. 24,
`
`2014); Canon Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2014-00536, Paper 11, at 4
`
`(PTAB Nov. 5, 2014) (“separate fee payments, [] d[o] not assure [] that [] separate
`
`trials w[ill] be instituted.”). The Board may also elect to eliminate redundancies
`
`across the petitions and consolidate the remainder of the petitions “to administer
`
`the proceedings more efficiently.” Microsoft Corp. v. Surfcast, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00292, Paper 15, at 2 (PTAB Nov. 19, 2013).
`
`Finally, as set forth in Patent Owner’s preliminary response to each petition,
`
`Patent Owner believes that none of the grounds of unpatentability presented in any
`
`of the pending petitions challenging the ’121 Patent should be instituted on any
`
`claim. However, to the extent that the Board determines that some of the grounds
`
`presented by Petitioners should be instituted, and is seeking to identify a
`
`reasonable basis for choosing among the various grounds, Patent Owner submits
`
`that that the goal of “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding” will best be served by instituting on the grounds based on Koster, as
`
`those grounds are similar to those presented in the ’163 Petition, filed by
`
`Petitioners’ co-defendants.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`V. MEMORY INTEGRITY’S CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS
`Because this preliminary response “is limited to setting forth the reasons
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`why no inter partes review should be instituted,” 32 C.F.R. § 42.107(a), Memory
`
`Integrity does not at this time propose a construction for each term. However, the
`
`following terms are either manifestly incorrectly construed by Petitioners, or are
`
`wholly ignored by Petitioners. Memory Integrity reserves the right to assert any
`
`construction of any term in any Patent Owner’s response, or in any subsequent
`
`filing in this proceeding, or in any other proceeding.2
`
`
`2
`Patent Owner acknowledges that the PTAB has determined that the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation standard is the appropriate standard for construing claims
`
`of an unexpired patent in an IPR proceeding, and that a panel of the Federal Circuit
`
`has recently affirmed that holding. See In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC,
`
`No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). Nonetheless, Patent Owner contends that
`
`the claims should be construed in accordance the same standard used by the district
`
`courts as articulated by the Federal Circuit in Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
`
`1303(Fed. Cir. 2005), and Patent Owner explicitly preserves this issue in the event
`
`that the Federal Circuit takes this issue en banc or there is some other change in the
`
`governing law. Patent Owner maintains that its proposed constructions are correct
`
`under either standard.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`A.
`
`“probe filtering unit” (claims 1, 16, 25)
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`Memory Integrity submits that the proper construction of a probe filtering
`
`unit requires, at least, “an apparatus operable to filter probes within a single cluster
`
`of processors.” The ’121 Patent describes the probe filtering unit, stating:
`
`The filtering of probes within a cluster, i.e., local probe filtering,
`may be implemented in systems . . . having a single cluster of
`processors. . . . . In [that case], these functionalities may be
`implemented in a device which will be referred to herein as a
`probe filtering unit (PFU). It should be understood that the use of
`the term “probe filtering unit” or “PFU” in the following discussion is
`not intended to be limiting or exclusive. Rather, any device or object
`operable to perform the described functionalities . . . is within the
`scope of the invention.
`
`Ex. 1001 at 26:36-57; see also Ex. 1001 at 26:58-27:4 (“FIG. 18 is a diagrammatic
`
`representation of a multiple processor system 1800 in which embodiments of the
`
`invention relating to the filtering of probes within a single cluster of processors
`
`may be practiced. System 1800 [includes] probe filtering unit 1830.”); Ex. 1001
`
`at 29:31-53 (“FIG. 21 is a diagrammatic representation of a transaction flow in
`
`which local probe filtering is facilitated . . . The memory controller . . . generates
`
`a probe to the probe filtering unit PFU. . . . The PFU, in turn, probes nodes N0 and
`
`N2 after it applies its directory lookup and probe filtering algorithm”).
`
`Contrary to the plain disclosures of the specification of the ’121 Patent,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Petitioners propose that “probe filtering unit” be construed as “device or object
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`
`operable to perform the claimed functionalities.” Pet. at 17. In essence, Petitioners
`
`seek to read the term “probe filtering unit” out of the claims—as if it did not
`
`appear at all. As a threshold issue, this violates the fundamental canon against
`
`“render[ing] other parts of [a] claim superfluous.” Merck & Co. v. Teva
`
`Pharmaceuticals USA, 395 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“a claim
`
`construction that gives meaning to all the terms of the claim is preferred over one
`
`that does not do so.”). Moreover, because each claim recites different limitations
`
`with different “claimed functionalities,” Petitioners’ construction requires that the
`
`meaning of “probe filtering unit” change and be different in each claim. This
`
`violates the doctrine that “a claim term should be construed consistently with its
`
`appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the same patent.”
`
`Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`
`Moreover, Petitioners distort and selectively misquote the relevant portion of
`
`the specification of the ’121 Patent. The specification defines “probe filtering
`
`unit” in the paragraph first describing “local probe filtering”—“the filtering of
`
`probes within a cluster.” Ex. 1001 at 26:36-57 (“the filtering of probes within a
`
`cluster, i.e., local probe filtering, may be implemented in systems . . . having a
`
`single cluster of processors . . . these functionalities may be implemented in a
`
`device which will be referred to herein as a probe filtering unit (PFU).”). At the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00158
`
`conclusion of the paragraph, the specification notes that “the use of the term ‘probe
`
`filtering unit’ or ‘PFU’ in the following discussion [i.e. the discussion at 26:58-
`
`30:37] is not intended to be limiting or exclusive.” Petitioners attempt to mislead
`
`the Board by excluding the language “in the fol