throbber
Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO. LTD, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC AND
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121
`
`
`
`Inter Partes Review Case No. 2015-00159
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S RESPONSE TO
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`
`
`
`

`
`Response to Observation #1: Petitioners’ Observation #1 is improper because
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`rather than addressing the deponent’s testimony, Petitioners seek to clarify
`
`ambiguities in their own opposition to the motion to amend. In particular,
`
`Petitioners now argue that their opposition has an “application of the individual
`
`R10000 processor in the Origin system to the claimed ‘processing node.’”
`
`Petitioners also mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s opinions and testimony as
`
`demonstrating that such application is “valid.” Dr. Oklobdzija said nothing of the
`
`sort—he merely said either scenario could be considered. Ex. 1032 at 21:3-13.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Oklobdzija substantively addressed both scenarios—(1) where the
`
`“processing node” was limited to the SGI Origin’s processors (Ex. 2042 ¶¶ 12-15),
`
`and (2) where the “processing node” also included the local hub chip (Ex. 2042 ¶¶
`
`10-11). Dr. Oklobdzija’s opinions demonstrate each scenario fails to render the
`
`proposed substitute claims unpatentable.
`
`Response to Observation #2: Petitioners’ Observation #2 mischaracterizes Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s opinions and testimony as “not consider[ing] ‘where the probe in a
`
`hub-to-hub transmission originates from.’” To the contrary, Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`testified that the probe comes from the hub chip itself. Ex. 1032 at 29:14-16,
`
`38:10-16, 161:21-162:13. Moreover, the question’s implied suggestion that a
`
`requesting node’s hub chip’s probes must have originated from elsewhere made no
`
`sense in light of Dr. Oklobdzija’s opinions, which noted that (1) “[t]he processor in
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`the requesting node is connected to a hub in the requesting node via a ‘SysAD
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`bus.’ . . . [while], the hubs in SGI Origin communicate with each other via a
`
`‘Craylink’ interface,” (Ex. 2042 ¶ 13); (2) “the hub chip has significant logic
`
`between these interfaces, which among other things, ‘hides the processors from the
`
`rest of the world, so any other interface must only know the behavior of the PI
`
`[processor interface] and not of the processor and SysAD bus themselves,’” (id.)
`
`(3) “in some instances, there is not even a one-to-one relationship between the
`
`processor’s outgoing messages and the outgoing messages from the hub” (id.), and
`
`(4) that the “processors are ignorant about” “at least some details of the cache
`
`coherent protocol” for “which the hub is responsible for implementing” (id.). This
`
`is consistent with Dr. Oklobdzija’s deposition testimony. Ex. 1032 at 26:25-28:7.
`
`Thus, there is no “alternative source” for a probe that need to be identified and
`
`nothing in Dr. Oklobdzija’s testimony suggests that the probes received by a home
`
`node’s hub chip are the same as sent by a processor.
`
`Response to Observation #3: Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`testimony as somehow demonstrating that “a change in a probe’s message format
`
`is not relevant to the limitations of the substitute claims.” However, just because
`
`the ’121 Patent does not describe or claim a “specific” message format, that does
`
`not imply that the format of messages (i.e. of an alleged probe) is not “relevant” in
`
`determining whether the probe received by the alleged probe filtering unit (i.e. the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`hub chip of the home node) is the same probe as sent by a processor. Dr.
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Oklobdzija’s declaration explained how “transport formats,” in addition to
`
`“protocols, and speeds,” relate to the claim limitation “the probe filtering unit
`
`being operable to receive probes corresponding to memory lines from the
`
`processing nodes,” Ex. 2042 ¶¶ 12-13. In particular, he opined that “if the hub is
`
`not within a processing node, then the hub at the home node is not receiving probes
`
`from the processing nodes, it is receiving a request from another hub.” Id. ¶ 12.
`
`The discussion of message formats relate to addressing the potential
`
`counterargument that “Petitioners may argue that the hub in the home node is
`
`receiving a probe ‘from the processing node’ because ultimately a request sent by
`
`the requesting node’s hub is due to a processor’s cache miss.” Id. ¶ 13. The
`
`questions in the cited deposition testimony wholly failed to attempt to address
`
`those opinions. Thus, there is nothing inconsistent between Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`testimony that he was not relying on a particular message format from the ’121
`
`Patent’s specification, and his discussion of message formats in the context of his
`
`opinion that, in SGI Origin, probes sent by a requesting node’s processor are not
`
`the same “probe” as received by a home node’s hub chip.
`
`Response to Observation #4: Observation #4 is a misleading non-sequitur.
`
`Petitioners cite testimony of Dr. Oklobdzija acknowledging that the ’121 Patent
`
`allegedly describes an embodiment using different point-to-point protocols on
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`different point-to-point links. Petitioners conclude that this demonstrates that “a
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`change in a probe’s message format is not relevant to the limitations of the
`
`substitute claims.” To the contrary, Dr. Oklobdzija expressly noted that it would
`
`“not necessarily” be the case that “two different point-to-point protocols” would
`
`even cause “the probe [to] change.” Ex. 1032 at 75:10-19. Moreover, Petitioners’
`
`argument is entirely divorced from the language of the substitute claims, and
`
`improperly attempts to read in one potential embodiment into all of the claims
`
`contrary to their plain language. Dr. Oklobdzija explained in his declaration how a
`
`change in message formats was one of several factors (including protocols and
`
`speeds) that demonstrates that SGI Origin’s home node hub chip is not “operable
`
`to receive probes corresponding to memory lines from the processing nodes” (Ex.
`
`2042 ¶¶ 12-13) and the cited testimony does not attempt to substantively discuss
`
`those opinions or the claim language upon which Dr. Oklobdzija relied.
`
`Response to Observation #5: Again Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`testimony and opinions. Rather than testifying that read requests are “passed
`
`through the hub,” Dr. Oklobdzija expressly disagreed with that characterization
`
`and testified that the PI (processor interface) “passes them to the buffers, and the
`
`buffers have coherence protocols or coherence control that keeps track of
`
`outstanding transactions and controls the flow of messages” which “indicates . . . it
`
`has perhaps a little bit of a different and more complex protocol in handling those
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`requests.” Ex. 1032 at 78:17-79:4. Moreover, Petitioners’ conclusory statement
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`that “Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration does not present any evidence that the
`
`read request received by the hub in the home node is substantively different from
`
`the read request sent by the processor” is plainly false. Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`declaration identified the teachings in Culler and Laudon that (1) “[t]he router
`
`[between hubs] and the Hub internals use different data transport formats
`
`protocols, and speeds” (Ex. 2042 ¶ 13), (2) “[t]he processor in the requesting node
`
`is connected to a hub in the requesting node via a ‘SysAD bus.’ . . . [while], the
`
`hubs in SGI Origin communicate with each other via a ‘Craylink’ interface” (id.)
`
`(3) “the hub chip has significant logic between these interfaces, which among other
`
`things, ‘hides the processors from the rest of the world, so any other interface must
`
`only know the behavior of the PI [processor interface] and not of the processor and
`
`SysAD bus themselves,” (id.) (4) “in some instances, there is not even a one-to-one
`
`relationship between the processor’s outgoing messages and the outgoing messages
`
`from the hub” (id.), and (5) that the “processors are ignorant about” “at least some
`
`details of the cache coherent protocol” for “which the hub is responsible for
`
`implementing” (id.). Furthermore, that Dr. Oklobdzija could not identify specific
`
`changes in the format of a read request is entirely consistent with his declaration ,
`
`where he noted that “neither Culler or Laudon discuss the message format of any
`
`of the messages sent by the processors, or sent or received by the hubs.” Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Response to Observation #6: Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`testimony as purportedly setting forth some opinion as to the degree or nature of
`
`modifications of the probe between what is sent by a requesting processor and
`
`what is received by the hub at the home node in SGI Origin (i.e. the alleged probe
`
`filtering unit) such that it would no longer be operable to receive a probe from the
`
`processing nodes. To the contrary, Dr. Oklobdzija repeatedly noted that the
`
`references do not provide any disclosure of the specific message formats used for
`
`such transmissions, and as such, he was unable to perform such an analysis and
`
`that Petitioner’s questions, divorced from a particular example, asked for
`
`“speculation” as he had “no data to . . . conclude either way.” Ex. 1032 at 55:8-
`
`55:20, 56:17-23, 57:17-24, 65:22-66:5, 67:15-68:4, 69:12-21; 167:22-169:14.
`
`Thus, there is no relevance to the fact that “Dr. Oklobdzija’s Reply Declaration
`
`does not assert that the read request received by the hub in a home node does not
`
`solicit the same response as the read request issued by the requesting processor.”
`
`No such specific analysis could be performed. Additionally, Dr. Oklobdzija did
`
`not testify, as Petitioners argue, “that as long as any modification to a probe does
`
`not affect the response solicited from the system, it is the same probe for purposes
`
`of the substitute claims.” Rather, in the context of a “hypothetical” and
`
`“speculative” example, Dr. Oklobdzija identified changing the response solicited
`
`as sufficient to cause the probe to not be the same. However, that does not imply
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`the inverse statement, as argued by Petitioners, that not changing the response is
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`sufficient to cause the probe to be the same. Thus, there is no inconsistency in Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s testimony.
`
`Response to Observation #7: Petitioners again misconstrue Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`opinions. Petitioners cite to testimony where Dr. Oklobdzija acknowledged that, in
`
`certain multi-cluster embodiments depicted in the figures of the ’121 Patent,
`
`communications between different clusters would be sent through each cluster’s
`
`cache coherence controller. As a threshold issue, Dr. Oklobdzija opined that a
`
`point-to-point architecture requires multiple processors which are directly
`
`connected to each other, not that all processors are directly connected. Ex. 2042 ¶
`
`14 (citing ’121 Pat. at 4:38-40). Thus, there is nothing inconsistent with that
`
`opinion and an embodiment having processors in different clusters not being
`
`directly connected, as long as multiple processors within a cluster are directly
`
`connected. Additionally, the testimony that cache coherence chips interconnect the
`
`clusters of such embodiments is not inconsistent with Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration.
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration expressly states that his opinion that SGI Origin’s
`
`processors are not directly connected “is not meant to indicate that the mere
`
`presence of some physical components between individual processors is
`
`inconsistent with those processors being directly interconnected by a point-to-point
`
`architecture” but rather “the description of the SGI Origin’s hub’s as ‘hiding’
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`processors and using ‘different . . . protocols’ to communicate within hubs as
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`opposed to between hubs demonstrates that Origin’s processor-to-hub and hub-to –
`
`hub communications are separate architectures (e.g. a SysAD bus and a ‘Craylink’
`
`network) rather than the claimed single point-to-point architecture which
`
`interconnects a plurality of processing nodes.” Ex. 2042 at 14, ¶ 14, n. 4. The
`
`cited testimony did not discuss that portion of Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration, which
`
`demonstrates that his deposition testimony is consistent with the opinions in his
`
`declaration.
`
`Response to Observation #8: The cited portion of the testimony of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s deposition merely reflects that Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the claims
`
`do not expressly recite that multiple processors are “directly” connected in a point-
`
`to-point architecture. Ex. 1032 at 80:3-8 (“It doesn’t say ‘directly.’”). However,
`
`this is not inconsistent with Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration, which addresses the
`
`construction and meaning of the term “point-to-point architecture” in the ’121
`
`Patent and cites the ’121 Patent’s statement that “‘[i]n a point-to-point
`
`architecture,’ there are ‘multiple processors directly connected to each other
`
`through point-to-point links.” Ex. 2042 ¶ 14 (citing ’121 Pat. at 4:38-40). The
`
`cited portions of the deposition do not discuss claim construction or the meaning of
`
`the term point-to-point architecture. Moreover, the cited portions of the deposition
`
`discussing Figure 2 of the ’121 Patent merely reflect that Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`acknowledges that Figure 2 of the ’121 Patent depicts an embodiment of a point-
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`to-point architecture in which fewer than all processors are directly connected.
`
`Contrary to Petitioners’ argument, this is consistent with the opinions of Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s declaration—which notes that the ’121 Patent describes that, in point-
`
`to-point architectures, “multiple” processors are “directly” connected. Ex. 2042 ¶
`
`14 (citing ’121 Pat. at 4:38-40). The ’121 Patent’s teaching that “multiple”
`
`processors are directly connected in a point-to-point architecture does not mean
`
`that “all” processors are directly connected.
`
`Response to Observation #9: Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`testimony and opinions. Petitioners cite testimony from Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`acknowledging that the bus used in SGI Origin is a multiplexed bus that does not
`
`perform snooping. However, neither Dr. Oklobdzija nor the ’121 Patent identify
`
`snooping as the sole basis for distinguishing between buses and point-to-point
`
`architectures. Contrary to Petitioners’ characterization, Dr. Oklobdzija testified
`
`that a bus is not a point-to-point connection and that point-to-point connections
`
`require a point-to-point protocol. Ex. 1032 at 73:7-16, 152:7-20.
`
`Response to Observation #10: Petitioners again mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`testimony and opinions. Petitioners cite testimony where Dr. Oklobdzija
`
`acknowledged that, in an embodiment of SGI Origin with only one processor per
`
`node, there are only two endpoints to the SysAD bus connecting the processor and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`the hub chip. However, that does not support Petitioners’ conclusion that such
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`testimony “demonstrates that the SysAD bus in Origin is a point-to-point link, as
`
`opposed to a snooping-based shared medium.” Contrary to Petitioners’
`
`implication, Dr. Oklobdzija did not testify that having “two endpoints” or the
`
`absence of snooping is sufficient for a bus to be rendered into a point-to-point link.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Oklobdzija testified that bus is not a point-to-point connection and that
`
`point-to-point connections require a point-to-point protocol. Ex. 1032 at 73:7-16,
`
`152:7-20.
`
`Response to Observation #11: Petitioners mischaracterize Dr. Oklobdzija’s
`
`testimony as “demonstrate[ing]” that “the SysAD bus in Origin serves the same
`
`goals as the point-to-point architecture in the ’121 Patent.” Dr. Oklobdzija merely
`
`noted that the ’121 Patent describes reducing latency and improving bandwidth as
`
`two benefits of its point-to-point architecture, and that Laudon has a “general
`
`discussion” also describing reducing latency and improving bandwidth as two
`
`benefits of its overall architecture. But, the portions of Laudon referenced in the
`
`cited testimony focused on SGI Origin’s overall decision to not use an SMP
`
`design—including limiting the number of processors per node to a small number
`
`(“one or two”) Ex. 1032 at 96:9-13; Ex. 1030 at 242 (“Local memory latency is
`
`reduced because the bus can be run at a much higher frequency when it needs to
`
`support only one or two processor [sic] than when it must support large number
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`[sic] of processors.”). That discussion was not specifically tied to the design
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`decision to use the multiplexed SysAD bus. To the contrary, the reason identified
`
`by Laudon for the decision to use a multiplexed bus was “to save Hub pins.” Ex.
`
`1030 at 242. Moreover, Dr. Oklobdzija did not testify, as Petitioners imply, that
`
`latency and bandwidth are the sole benefits of a point-to-point architecture. At
`
`most, Petitioners identify two goals in common, of many, between the design
`
`decisions for the overall design of the SGI Origin and the overall design of the
`
`inventions of the ‘121 Patent.
`
`Response to Observation #12: Contrary to Petitioner’s implication, the cited
`
`passages merely dealt with Dr. Oklobdzija’s analysis with whether a “point-to-
`
`point architecture” as used in the ’121 Patent, includes “mesh” architectures. Ex.
`
`1032 at 177:18-24. Ultimately, he concluded that they did, and thus Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija testified that the left portion of Figure 3 of the Laudon references
`
`depicts “a cube connected in a point-to-point architecture.” Ex. 1032 at 181:24-
`
`182:2. However, none of this discussion related to Dr. Oklobdzija’s underlying
`
`opinions as to why SGI Origin is not a point-to-point architecture, in particular, the
`
`role of the SGI Origin hub chip in connecting processors in different nodes.
`
`Indeed, Figure 3 does not depict any hub chips, and merely shows black boxes.
`
`Ex. 1030 at 243, Fig. 3. Petitioners specifically tested this issue, and Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija testified that Figure 3 of Laudon depicts “routers” between the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`processors, not the SGI Origin “hub” chips, and that the “hub” chip is quite
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`different from the “router.” Ex. 1032 at 110:14-113:13. Thus, the cited testimony
`
`is entirely consistent about with Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration, which noted that
`
`some components, such as switches (or routers), can be part of a single point-to-
`
`point architecture connecting multiple processors, but that the hub chips of SGI
`
`Origin have specific functionality which cause the overall system to not be a point-
`
`to-point architecture. Ex. 2042 at 14 ¶ 14 n.4.
`
`Response to Observation #13: The cited passage referred to an entirely
`
`hypothetical scenario of a “system that communicates with a separate memory
`
`which is not cached.” Dr. Oklobdzija found the scenario implausible and hard to
`
`reconcile with systems that maintain cache coherency, and said he was “not sure
`
`[he] kn[e]w what the answer would be” to questions involving such a system. Ex.
`
`1032 at 126:17-127:7, 128:7-8. Moreover, the cited passage has no relation to Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s opinions as to the SGI Origin’s ‘Xbow’ interface. Petitioners cite to
`
`nothing, in Dr. Oklobdzija’s testimony or in the references, which describe the
`
`Xbow interface as being equivalent to Petitioner’s hypothetical. Indeed,
`
`Petitioners did not ask Dr. Oklobdzija about the Xbow interface at all. Thus,
`
`Petitioner’s statement that “Dr. Oklobdzija admits that the ‘Xbow’ interface fits
`
`‘the words’ of Patent Owner’s proposed definition of a non-coherent interface” is
`
`plainly false. Moreover, the cited reference to Dr. Oklobdzija’s declaration
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`discussing Xbow handling “non-coherent ‘uncached’ I/O operations” is not
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`equivalent to the hypothetical that Petitioner’s presented, including because the
`
`Xbow also handles both “coherent” and “non-coherent” operations together
`
`(without rendering them logically distinct with separate protocols), and there is no
`
`discussion of the ‘Xbow’ interface having a “separate memory.” Ex. 2042 ¶ 15
`
`(discussing Xbow interface).
`
`Response to Observation #14: Petitioners mischaracterize the cited testimony.
`
`The question was directed to whether one could hypothetically “add two additional
`
`unidirectional wires to the probe filtering unit [of a hypothetical system] and have
`
`the drivers direct the noncoherent messages to those wires.” Ex. 1032 at 129:4-
`
`130:23. The question was not directed to a particular system, and did not ask Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s opinion as to whether it would have been obvious to modify any
`
`existing system in that manner, or the difficulty or practical feasibility of such a
`
`modification.
`
`Response to Observation #15: The referenced testimony did not refer to Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s application of any construction to any particular piece of prior art.
`
`Rather, the testimony referred to the hypothetical scenario of “a hundred percent
`
`overlap” in “shared components” between two interfaces. Ex. 1032 at 132:11-12.
`
`Petitioners do not describe how that is relevant as to any issue in this case.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Oklobdzija later testified that the interfaces could be made
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`logically separate through the use of protocols, which is entirely consistent with
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Petitioners’ proposed constructions. Ex. 1032 at 132:22-133:10. Moreover, during
`
`the cited testimony, Dr. Oklobdzija was directly reading and referencing to the
`
`portion of his declaration which reiterated Petitioners’ position as to the
`
`constructions of these terms, demonstrating that he was aware of and applied the
`
`Petitioners’ constructions. Ex. 1032 at 132:5-9; Ex. 2042 at 6 ¶ 6 n.2; Motion to
`
`Amend at 24 n.5. Thus, Petitioners do not demonstrate any actual inconsistency in
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija’s testimony.
`
`Response to Observation #16: Petitioners misconstrue and mischaracterize Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija’s testimony. In particular, Petitioners point to disparate parts of
`
`testimony where Petitioners’ counsel used the term “logic” in a different context
`
`and attempts to equate those different parts of the testimony. In one portion of his
`
`testimony, Dr. Oklobdzija stated that logically distinct coherent and non-coherent
`
`protocol interfaces could be implemented using protocols. Ex. 1032 at 132:22-
`
`133:10. Petitioners’ counsel described this as “logic for performing cached and
`
`uncached operations across an interface” in seeking to confirm whether Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija believed that such a scenario satisfied the proposed substitute claims.
`
`Id. at 133:4-8. In this context, “logic” clearly referred to the prior questions and
`
`answers in regards to implementing logically distinct interfaces using protocols.
`
`Later in the deposition, in discussing an exhibit, Dr. Oklobdzija acknowledged that
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`SGI Origin must have some “logic” for performing “logic to access the memory
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`for cached and uncached operations.” Ex. 1032 at 134:14-136:23. In this sense,
`
`“logic” referred to any mechanism for implementing such operations, but not
`
`necessarily implementing them as logically distinct interfaces using separate
`
`protocols. Thus, the two portions of deposition testimony that Petitioners cite to
`
`are not equivalent—counsel did not ask whether SGI Origin had logically distinct
`
`coherent and non-coherent protocol interfaces, or whether SGI Origin used
`
`protocols to implement logically distinct cached and uncached interfaces across a
`
`physical interface.
`
`
`
`Date: January 15, 2016
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Saunders/
`Michael D. Saunders
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Farney Daniels PC
`411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350
`San Mateo, California 94402
`Phone: 424-268-5210
`
`E-mail: msaunders@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), this is to certify that I served a copy of the
`
`foregoing PATENT OWNER MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S RESPONSE TO
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR OBSERVATION via email on January 15, 2016
`
`to Petitioners’ counsel of record at the following email addresses:
`
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41, 265
`Roberto Devoto, Reg. No. 55, 108
`Michael Rueckheim, pro hac vice
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Email:
`IPR39521-0007IP1@fr.com
`IPR39521-0007IP2@fr.com
`IPR39521-0007IP3@fr.com
`IPR39521-0007IP4@fr.com
`renner@fr.com
`devoto@fr.com
`rueckheim@fr.com
`
`
`
`Dated: January 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`/Michael D. Saunders/
`Michael D. Saunders
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`
`16

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