throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket