`571.272.7822
`
`
`Paper No. 13
`
` Filed: July 23, 2015
`
`
`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.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, NEIL T. POWELL, and KERRY BEGLEY,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc., Sony Mobile
`
`
`
`
`
`Communications AB, and Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) timely filed a request for rehearing of our
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`decision on institution of inter partes review (“Rehearing Request”).
`
`Paper 10 (“Req. Reh’g”). Specifically, the request seeks rehearing of our
`
`determination to deny institution of inter partes review of 1) claims 1–3, 8,
`
`15, 16, and 25 as anticipated by Koster1; 2) claims 17 and 18 as obvious over
`
`Koster; 3) claims 15 and 25 as obvious over Koster, Kuskin2, and Park3;
`
`4) claims 1–3, 8, 11, 12, 14–18, 24, and 25 as obvious over Luick4 and
`
`Kosaraju5; 5) claims 19–23 as obvious over Luick, Kosaraju, and Kuskin;
`
`and 6) claims 15 and 25 as obvious over Luick, Kosaraju, and Park. Req.
`
`Reh’g 1–2. For the reasons given below, we deny the Rehearing Request.
`
`When rehearing a decision whether to institute inter partes review, we
`
`review the decision for an “abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The
`
`burden of showing [the] decision should be modified lies with the party
`
`challenging the decision.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). The request for rehearing
`
`“must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in” the petition. Id.
`
`1. Koster Challenges
`
`Petitioner proffers Koster as § 102(e) art. Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”), 7.
`
`There is no dispute that Koster’s filing date of July 13, 2004, is before the
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 7,698,509 B1 (Ex. 1005, “Koster”).
`2 Jeffrey Kuskin et al., The Stanford FLASH Multiprocessor, in
`PROCEEDINGS OF THE 21ST ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
`COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE 302 (1994) (Ex. 1006, “Kuskin”).
`3 S. Park & D.L. Dill, Verification of Cache Coherence Protocols by
`Aggregation of Distributed Transactions, 31 THEORY OF COMPUTING
`SYSTEMS 355 (1998) (Ex. 1007, “Park”).
`4 U.S. Patent No. 6,088,769 (Ex. 1008, “Luick”).
`5 U.S. Patent Application No. 2002/0073261 A1 (Ex. 1009, “Kosaraju”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`filing date of U.S. Application No. 10/966,161 (“the ’161 application”)—
`
`October 15, 2004—which issued as the ’121 patent. Patent Owner,
`
`however, asserts that claims 1–3, 8, 15–18, and 25 are entitled to the filing
`
`date of U.S. Application No. 10/288,347 (“the ’347 application”)—
`
`November 4, 2002—of which the ’161 application was a continuation-in-
`
`part. Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”) 27–32.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner argued to the contrary. Pet. 4–7. Because Koster
`
`was filed after the ’347 application, it is prior art only if Petitioner is correct
`
`and the challenged claims of the ’121 patent are not entitled to the filing date
`
`of the ’347 application.
`
`In view of the arguments and evidence presented by the Petition and
`
`Preliminary Response, our Decision explained that we were persuaded the
`
`’347 application contains written description support for claims 1–3, 8, 15–
`
`18, and 25, entitling these claims to the filing date of the ’347 application.
`
`Decision – Institution of Inter Partes Review (Paper 7, “Dec.”), 14–18.
`
`Consequently, the Decision denied the Petition’s challenge of: 1) claims 1–
`
`3, 8, 15, 16, and 25 as anticipated by Koster, 2) claims 17 and 18 as obvious
`
`over Koster, and 3) claims 15 and 25 as obvious over Koster, Kuskin, and
`
`Park. Id. at 18.
`
`The request seeks reconsideration of these denials, maintaining that
`
`the ’347 application does not contain written description support for
`
`claims 1–3, 8, 15–18, and 25 because “[the ’347 application] does not
`
`disclose the ‘probe filtering unit’ as claimed by the ’121 patent.” Req.
`
`Reh’g. 2–6. The request argues that the Decision “overlooked the fact that
`
`the definition of ‘probe filtering information’ was broadened significantly
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`between the [’347 application] and the ’161 application.” Id. at 4 (citing Pet.
`
`6–7). In concert with this, the request argues that:
`
`Quite simply, the parent application does not disclose a
`“probe filtering unit” (whether specifically a “cache
`coherence controller” or not) that uses “probe filtering
`information” in connection with nodes. Petition at 5–7.
`Such a disclosure would be necessary for the parent
`application to properly support claims 1–3, 8, 15–18, and
`25 of the ’121 patent. X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. Int’l
`Trade Comm’n, 757 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`(“[A] claim is entitled to the priority date of an earlier
`application only if the earlier application provides
`sufficient written support for the full scope of the claim.”)
`(emphasis added); Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am.,
`Inc., 601 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“To obtain
`the benefit of the filing date of a parent application, the
`claims of the later-filed application must be supported by
`the written description in the parent in sufficient detail
`that one skill in the art can clearly conclude that the
`inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing
`date sought.”).
`
`Req. Reh’g. 5–6.
`
`In reaching our holding in the Decision, we did not overlook the
`
`Petition’s argument that the definition of “probe filtering information”
`
`changed between the ’347 application and the ’161 application. See, e.g.,
`
`Dec. 15–16. The Petition suggested that the effect of the alleged definition
`
`change is that the probe filtering information disclosed in the
`
`’347 application bears no relationship to the claims of the ’121 patent. See
`
`Pet. 6 (“the definition of ‘probe filtering information’ changed between the
`
`[’347 application] and the ’121 Patent such that the definition in the
`
`[’347 application] is admittedly unrelated to the claims of the ’121 Patent”).
`
`In our Decision, we held that, contrary to the Petition’s argument, we were
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`persuaded that the probe filtering information disclosed in the
`
`’347 application does relate to the probe filtering information in the
`
`challenged claims. Dec. 17. Specifically, we held that we were persuaded
`
`that the “probe filtering information” disclosed in the ’347 application
`
`constitutes “probe filtering information” under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of that language in the challenged claims. Id. The Petition did
`
`not argue, as the request now suggests, that the challenged claims are not
`
`entitled to the filing date of the ’347 application because the ’347 application
`
`does not provide written description support for the full scope of the
`
`challenged claims. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the request
`
`identifies a matter in the Petition that we overlooked or misapprehended.
`
`Moreover, even if the Petition had presented the arguments that
`
`Petitioner advances in the request, they are not persuasive. The arguments
`
`in the request revolve around an assertion that the ’347 application does not
`
`disclose using “‘probe filtering information’ in connection with nodes.”
`
`Req. Reh’g. 5. Petitioner contends that “the term ‘node’ means ‘an entity
`
`associated with one or more interconnected lines and optionally containing
`
`other functional units, such as cache memory.’” Pet. 14. Under this
`
`definition of “node,” the “clusters” disclosed in the ’347 application
`
`constitute nodes, as the disclosed clusters are entities associated with one or
`
`more interconnected lines. For example, in connection with Figure 1A, the
`
`’347 application discloses “processing clusters 101, 103, 105, and 107”
`
`associated with point-to-point links 11a–f, which are “internal system
`
`connections.” Ex. 2006, 10. As Petitioner concedes, the ’347 application
`
`discloses “probe filtering information” used in connection with clusters to
`
`reduce the number of clusters probed. See, e.g., Ex. 2006, 23–24; Pet. 6–7;
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`Req. Reh’g. 4. Given that a “cluster” constitutes a “node” under Petitioner’s
`
`definition of “node,” the ’347 application’s disclosure of “probe filtering
`
`information” used in connection with clusters contradicts Petitioner’s
`
`argument that the ’347 application does not disclose “probe filtering
`
`information” used in connection with nodes.
`
`2. Luick Challenges
`
`The Petition asserted that information in Luick’s Global Coherence
`
`Table (“GCT”) constitutes “probe filtering information,” as recited in
`
`independent claims 1, 16, and 25. See Pet. 34–35. Our Decision denied the
`
`claim challenges based on Luick, holding that Petitioner had not addressed
`
`adequately the limitation in the independent claims that the “probe filtering
`
`information” is “representative of states associated with selected ones of the
`
`cache memories.” Dec. 32–33. Specifically, our Decision explained that the
`
`Petition did not persuade us that Luick or any of the other cited references
`
`teach this limitation. Id. at 33–34. Our Decision noted that we were
`
`persuaded that Luick’s GCT contains information about which nodes contain
`
`shared data blocks, but does not contain information about whether those
`
`nodes have the data blocks in memory 105 or cache 107. Id. at 33. Our
`
`Decision further explained that it was “not facially apparent that the
`
`information in Luick’s GCT is ‘representative of states associated with
`
`selected ones of the cache memories.’” Id. Additionally, our Decision
`
`noted, the Petition neither provided any explanation showing that Luick’s
`
`GCT contained information “representative of states associated with selected
`
`ones of the cache memories,” nor asserted that any of the other cited
`
`references teach this limitation. Id. at 33–34.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`The request asserts that our Decision used reasoning that “is
`
`inapplicable to Petitioner’s actual argument.” Req. Reh’g. 7. In support of
`
`this, the request argues that:
`
`[T]he Board overlooked Petitioners’ position with respect
`to Luick’s disclosure of the claimed “cache memory”
`limitation. Specifically, Petitioners stated that Luick
`discloses both “a memory 105 [and] a cache 107.”
`Petition at 33, 53 (emphasis added). Thus, Petitioners
`believe that the disclosed “memory 105” and “cache
`107” each meet the claim limitation of “cache memory”
`because Luick teaches that in its system the “cache lines”
`are stored in either the “cache 107” or the “memory 105”
`of a node. Luick at 5:8-13.
`
`Id. at 6.
`
`Contrary to the assertion of the request, the Petition did not present
`
`the “actual argument” that both Luick’s memory 105 and cache 107
`
`constitute cache memory according to the claims. On page 33, the Petition
`
`merely states that “[i]n Luick, the nodes include ‘a memory 105 [and] a
`
`cache 107’” under a heading reciting the claim limitation “each processing
`
`node having a cache memory associated therewith.” Pet. 33. On page 53,
`
`the Petition merely quotes Luick’s disclosure of “a memory 105, a cache
`
`107” in connection with the claim limitation “each processing node having a
`
`cache memory associated therewith.” Pet. 53. The Petition does not explain
`
`whether one or both of memory 105 and cache 107 allegedly constitute
`
`“cache memory,” as recited in the challenged claims. See id. at 33, 53.
`
`Additionally, even if the Petition did assert that Luick’s memory 105
`
`and cache 107 both constitute cache memory, the Petition provides no
`
`support for such an assertion. In particular, the Petition does not argue, as
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`the request does, that Luick’s memory 105 constitutes cache memory
`
`because Luick discloses storing “cache lines” in memory 105.
`
`Moreover, even if the Petition had argued persuasively that Luick’s
`
`memory 105 constitutes cache memory, the Petition still lacks a persuasive
`
`explanation that Luick teaches “probe filtering information” that is
`
`“representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache
`
`memories.” Regarding these claim limitations, the Petition asserts that
`
`Luick discloses “probe filtering information,” but does not allege, much less
`
`explain how, Luick teaches that this information is “representative of states
`
`associated with selected ones of the cache memories.” See Pet. 35 (“The
`
`GCU then determines which nodes should respond using its Global
`
`Coherence Table (‘GCT’), which is a database where each entry indicates
`
`which nodes are sharing each piece of data (i.e., ‘probe filtering
`
`information’).”). For at least the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded
`
`that the request identifies a matter in the Petition that we overlooked or
`
`misapprehended.
`
`Furthermore, even considering the new arguments presented in the
`
`request, we are not persuaded that Luick’s memory 105 constitutes “cache
`
`memory.” As explained in our Decision, Luick uses the term “cache line” to
`
`refer to a certain quantity of data. See, e.g., Ex. 1008, 4:19–22, 4:24–26,
`
`5:8–13, 5:38–40, 5:44–6:35, 8:6–2; Dec. 29. Without more, this does not
`
`suggest that every component storing a “cache line” constitutes “cache
`
`memory.” Thus, we are not persuaded that the mere disclosure of storing a
`
`“cache line” in memory 105 supports Petitioner’s argument that Luick’s
`
`memory 105 constitutes cache memory. Petitioner does not provide other
`
`convincing evidence or explanation in support of this argument.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDER
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (Paper 10) is denied.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00158
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Lewis Popovski
`Michael Sander
`Zaed Billah
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`lpopovski@Kenyon.com
`msander@kenyon.com
`zbillah@kenyon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jonathan Baker
`Bryan Atkinson
`FARNEY DANIELS PC
`jbaker@farneydaniels.com
`MemoryIntegrityIPR@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`10