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
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S PATENT OWNER
`RESPONSE PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`“states” ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`“programmed” .......................................................................................11
`
`III. THE INSTITUTED CLAIMS SHOULD BE UPHELD AS VALID ...........17
`
`A. Pong and the other prior art at issue do not enable the limitations of
`the independent claims of the ’121 Patent ............................................17
`
`B. Pong fails to disclose “states” as that term is properly construed,
`which is recited in each independent claim of the ’121 Patent .............25
`
`C. Pong fails to disclose “probes” as that term is properly construed,
`which is recited in each independent claim of the ’121 Patent .............28
`
`D. Pong fails to disclose the “programmed” limitation of claim 11 ..........30
`
`E. Thus, Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that Pong anticipates
`claim 11. Additionally, because Petitioners’ anticipation argument
`as to claim 12, which is dependent on claim 11, relies on the same
`arguments, Petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that Pong
`anticipates claim 12. Pong fails to disclose the “accumulate
`responses to each probe” limitation of claim 15 and the
`“accumulating probe responses” limitation of claim 25 .......................34
`
`F. Pong does not disclose the “valid copy” limitation of claim 25 ...........37
`
`G. Smith, in combination with Pong, does not cure Pongs’ failures to
`disclose limitations of independent claim 16 ........................................37
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................38
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`Memory Integrity-2001
`
`Memory Integrity-2002
`
`Memory Integrity-2003
`
`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)
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary (10th ed. 1999)
`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
`Memory Integrity-2009 Not Used
`Memory Integrity-2010
`Sorin, et al., A PRIMER ON MEMORY CONSISTENCY AND
`CACHE COHERENCE (2011)
`Excerpts from D. E. Culler, J. P. Singh, and A. Gupta
`PARALLEL COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE, pp. 302, 307-310
`(1999)
`Excerpts from Microsoft Computer Dictionary (1999)
`Excerpts from Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th
`ed. 1999)
`Excerpts from Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary (10th ed. 1999)
`
`Memory Integrity-2004
`
`Memory Integrity-2005
`
`Memory Integrity-2011
`
`Memory Integrity-2012
`Memory Integrity-2013
`
`Memory Integrity-2014
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Description
`Excerpts from Laughton et al., ELECTRICAL ENGINEER’S
`REFERENCE BOOK, pp. 15/3 (16th ed. 2003)
`Memory Integrity-2016 Declaration of Vojin G. Oklobdzija, PhD in Support of
`Patent Owner’s Responses
`Curriculum Vitae of Vojin G. Oklobdzija, PhD
`
`Exhibit No.
`Memory Integrity-2015
`
`Memory Integrity-2017
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Beckman Instruments, Inc. v. LKB Produkter AB,
`892 F.2d 1547 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .......................................................................... 17
`
`CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG,
`224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 15
`
`In re LeGrice,
`301 F.2d 929 (C.C.P.A. 1962) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Blume,
`684 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir. 1982) ............................................................................ 17
`
`In re Payne,
`606 F.2d 303 (C.C.P.A. 1979) ............................................................................ 17
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .......................................................... 15
`
`Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States,
`147 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`593 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 31
`
`White Consol. Indus. v. Vega Servo-Control, Inc.,
`713 F.2d 788 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ............................................................................ 24
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................ 17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY .................................................... 13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY ................................................................. 13, 15
`
`MODERN DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS ................................................................... 13
`
`NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (20th ed. 2004) ........................................... 11, 13
`
`Sorin, et al., A Primer on Memory Consistency and Cache Coherence
`(2011) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Sorin, et al., Specifying and Verifying a Broadcast and a Multicast
`Snooping Cache Coherence Protocol (2002) ....................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`The Board should find that each of the instituted claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,296,121 (“the ’121 patent”) are patentable, because: (i) Pong and the other prior
`
`art at issue do not enable several features of the independent claims of the’121
`
`Patent, and (ii) correctly construed, Pong and the prior art at issue do not teach
`
`several limitations of the claims of the ’121 Patent.
`
`For these reasons as expressed more fully below, the Petitioners have failed
`
`to demonstrate that any claim of the ’121 Patent is unpatentable.
`
`II. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“states”
`The term “states” is recited in independent claims 1 and 16 of the ’121
`
`Patent as part of the longer phrase “probe filtering information representative of
`
`states associated with selected ones of the cache memories.” The term “states” is
`
`also recited in independent claim 25 in the similar phrase “probe filtering
`
`information . . . representative of states associated with selected ones of the cache
`
`memories.”
`
`In its decision on institution, the Board did not provide a specific
`
`construction for “states,” but preliminarily determined that “states” in the claims of
`
`the ’121 Patent are not limited to “cache coherence protocol states,” and that such
`
`states may consist of mere presence. IPR2015-00159, Paper 12 (“Institution
`
`Decision”) at 9-10. This was despite the fact that the Board determined that the
`
`term “probe” in the claims should be construed as “a mechanism for eliciting a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`response from a node to maintain cache coherency in a system.” Id. at 6. Patent
`
`Owner submits, as further demonstrated in the declaration of Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija
`
`filed herewith, that the appropriate construction of states is limited to cache
`
`coherence states, and does not include mere presence.
`
`As the Federal Circuit recently held, the Board may not “construe claims
`
`during IPR so broadly that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim
`construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). In particular, “giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`does not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation . . . [r]ather, claims
`
`should always be read in light of the specification and teachings in the underlying
`
`patent.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). “Even under the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation, the Board’s construction cannot be divorced from the
`
`specification and the record evidence and must be consistent with the one that
`
`those skilled in the art would reach.” Id. “A construction that is unreasonably
`
`broad and which does not reasonably reflect the plain language and disclosure will
`not pass muster.” Id.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the construction of states advocated
`
`by Petitioners, as well as the construction adopted by the Board in its decision on
`
`institution, are incorrect because they do not properly account for important
`
`teachings of the ’121 Patent and are divorced from the particular technical field
`
`from which the ’121 Patent arises—the field of cache coherency.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Indeed, the teachings of the ’121 Patent make it clear that its inventions are
`
`directed to the specific field of cache coherency. Ex. 2016 (“Oklobdzija Decl.”) ¶¶
`
`11-29. For example, from the very beginning of the “Background of the
`
`Invention” section, the ’121 Patent states that “Data access in multiple processor
`
`systems can raise issues relating to cache coherency.” IPR2015-00159, Ex. 1001
`
`(“’121 Patent”) at 1:26-27. Similarly, the’121 Patent describes the primary
`
`problem to be solved as “to provide techniques for improving data access and
`
`cache coherency in systems having multiple processors connected using point-to-
`point links.” Id. at 2:39-42.
`
`Petitioners argue that “states” in the ’121 Patent is not limited “even to a
`
`particular group of states, such as standard coherence protocol states” but instead
`
`may be “any modes or conditions of selected ones of the cache memories.” Pet. at
`
`10. Petitioners’ construction relies primarily on a definition from a Merriam
`
`Webster dictionary, a general purpose dictionary and generally ignores the
`
`teachings of the ’121 Patent. Similarly, the Board’s decision on institution
`
`primarily relied on the “Microsoft Computer Dictionary”—a technical dictionary
`
`that is broadly directed to the entire field of computing rather than to the specific
`
`technical fields at issue in the ’121 Patent. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 14 (‘121 Patent is
`
`directed to cache coherency).
`
`As Dr. Oklobdzija opines, although “state” may have many broad and
`
`different meanings in both general English usage, as well as in the general field of
`
`computers, the term “state” connotes a specific meaning in the field of cache
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`coherency—a cache coherency state. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 15. As an example of
`
`this, in one of the treatises on cache coherency, Sorin et al., A Primer on Memory
`Consistency and Cache Coherence (2011), the author equates the term “state” with
`
`cache coherence protocol states. For example, in a section on cache coherence
`
`protocol states, the author merely labels the section “States” as the heading for the
`
`section, and then immediately discusses various characteristics of cache coherence
`
`states, such as validity, dirtiness, exclusivity, and ownership. Ex. 2010 at 88-89;
`
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 15. This treatise also states that “[m]any coherence protocols
`
`use a subset of the classic five state MOESI model first introduced by Sweazey and
`
`Smith” and that “[t]he MOESI states, although quite common, are not an
`
`exhaustive set of stable states. . . . [t]here are many possible coherence states, but
`
`we focus our attention in this primer on the well-known MOESI states.” Ex. 2010
`
`at 89-91; Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 15. This interchangeable use of the term “states” and
`
`“coherence states” and, use of the term “state” alone to discuss the states of a
`
`particular cache coherence protocol, demonstrates that the term “state” means a
`
`cache coherence protocol state in the field of cache coherency.
`
`Additionally, the usage of the term “state” also dates back to the filing of the
`patent. For example, in Specifying and Verifying a Broadcast and a Multicast
`Snooping Cache Coherence Protocol, by Sorin et al. (2002), the author states that
`
`“[a] processor’s access to a cache block is determined by the state of that block in
`
`its cache, and this state is generally one of the five MOESI (Modified, Owned,
`
`Exclusive, Shared, Invalid) states.” Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 16; IPR2015-00159, Ex.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`2003 at 1. Again, this demonstrates that, in the field of cache coherency, the term
`
`“state” is equated with and means a cache coherence protocol state.
`
`The teachings of the ’121 Patent also demonstrate that the use of the term
`
`“state” in the patent is directed to cache coherence protocol states. Oklobdzija
`Decl. ¶ 17. For example, the ’121 Patent states that: “[A] coherence protocol can
`
`contain several types of messages . . . includ[ing] . . . probes,” that “[p]robes are
`
`used to query each cache in the system, and that “[t]he probe packet can carry
`information that allows the caches to properly transition the cache state for a
`specified line.” ’121 Patent at 9:21-29 (emphasis added). Here, the term “state” is
`
`plainly described in the context of a “coherence protocol,” and the probe’s method
`
`of maintaining coherency in this embodiment is to inform the cache how to
`
`transition from one cache state to another. The reference to “transition[ing]” states
`
`makes it clear that the relevant state is a cache coherence protocol state.
`
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 18_.
`Similarly, the ’121 Patent explains that “[b]y using a coherence directory,
`global memory line state information (with respect to each cluster) can be
`
`maintained and accessed by a memory controller or a cache coherence controller in
`
`a particular cluster.” ’121 Patent at 13:4-7 (emphasis added). Again, this section
`
`does not specifically state that the “memory line state information” is referring to
`
`states in a cache coherence protocol—that is because, as Dr. Oklobdzija opines,
`
`one of skill in the art would already understand that the term “state” in a reference
`
`discussing cache coherency would refer to cache coherence protocol states.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 19. However, the passage would make no sense if a
`“coherence directory” was concerned with states other than coherence states. As
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija opines, one of skill in the art would expect that if the phrase
`
`“memory line state information” was referring to cache coherence protocol states
`
`as well as other states, the patent would describe what those other “states” are—but
`
`no description of “states” other than cache coherence protocol states is provided.
`Id. Rather, the only thing described in the discussion of the coherence directory
`
`using the term “states” are cache coherence protocol states.
`
`Figures 7 and 8 are strongly illustrative that the ’121 Patent uses “state” to
`
`mean cache coherence protocol states. In particular, in describing Figure 7, the
`patent simply states “the coherence directory 701 includes state information 713”
`
`and “[i]n some embodiments, the memory line states are modified, owned, shared,
`
`and invalid.” ’121 Patent at 13:55-59 (emphasis added); Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 20.
`
`Again, the patent is equating the word “state” with coherence states. Moreover,
`
`Figure 7 of the ’121 Patent itself shows that the “State” field of the “Coherence
`
`Directory” stores the traditional cache coherence protocol states of “Invalid,”
`
`“Shared,” “Owned,” and “Modified.” ’121 Patent at Fig. 7; Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 20.
`
`Additionally, presence is not a cache coherence protocol state and mere
`
`presence should not be construed as satisfying the “state” limitation. As Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija opines, there is no cache coherence protocol that operates with mere
`
`presence as any state, and Dr. Oklobdzija does not believe any such protocol could
`
`work. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 21. In addition, Dr. Oklobdzija opines that a cache
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`coherence protocol state is concerned with the states of lines which are stored in
`
`the cache, but presence merely indicates whether a line is stored in cache. Id.
`
`Dr. Oklobdzija’s opinions are confirmed and supported by the teachings of
`
`the ’121 Patent. For example, the ’121 Patent teaches that “because the cache
`coherence directory provides information about where [i.e., in which cluster the
`line is present] memory lines are cached as well as their states, probes only need
`be directed toward the clusters in which the requested memory line is cached” and
`“[t]he state of a particular cached line will determine what type of probe is
`
`generated.” ’121 Patent at 19:36-43 (emphasis added). This passage plainly
`
`indicates not only that the “state” of a memory line is different from “where” the
`
`memory line is (i.e. in which cluster it is present), but also that a “state” only exists
`for a cached line, i.e., one that is stored in a cache. This confirms that the relevant
`
`“state” as used in the ’121 Patent is a state of a line that is “cached,” i.e. it is
`
`already known that the line is present in one of the caches. On the other hand, the
`“state” provides additional information about “a particular cached line” that is
`
`known to already be “somewhere” (i.e. it is alredy known to be present).
`
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 22. Dr. Oklobdzija also notes that because the cache coherence
`
`directory is implemented using an associative memory in the ’121 Patent, if a line
`
`were not present, searching the coherence directory’s associative memory for the
`
`cache line’s tag would simply result in a cache miss, rather than returning some
`
`particular row containing a state field. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 23. Thus, presence in a
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`cache is distinct from and a pre-condition to the existence of state for that cache
`
`line. Id.
`
`The ’121 Patent’s discussion of an “occupancy vector” also demonstrates
`
`that the ’121 Patent does not consider mere presence to be a “state.” The ’121
`
`Patent explains that “[a]ny mechanism for tracking what clusters hold a copy of the
`
`relevant memory line in cache [i.e., in which clusters the memory line is present] is
`
`referred to herein as an occupancy vector.” ’121 Patent at 14:2-4; Oklobdzija Decl.
`
`¶ 24. It provides the example of the occupancy vector “implemented as an N-bit
`
`string, where each bit represents the availability of the data in the cache of N
`
`clusters.” ’121 Patent at 13:67-14:2. The ’121 Patent’s discussion of “state
`
`information” and “occupancy vector” expressly treats them as different, stating that
`“the coherence directory 701 includes state information 713, dirty data owner
`information 715, and an occupancy vector 717 associated with the memory lines
`
`711.” ’121 Patent at 13:55-57. The “State” field and the “Occupancy Vector” field
`
`are also depicted as two different fields in the coherence directory in Figure 7 of
`
`the ’121 Patent. ’121 Patent at Fig. 7. It would be peculiar for the ’121 Patent to
`
`refer to the “occupancy vector” and “state” in this way if the patent envisioned the
`
`term “state” to also potentially include presence information. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶
`
`24. If “State” could include presence information, one would expect that Figure 7
`
`would say “Protocol State” instead of “State” to make clear that the “Occupancy
`
`Vector” also held the “state” for a line. But it does not, instead indicating that the
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`’121 Patent understands presence and “state” to be different, and that “state”
`
`exclusively refers to cache coherence protocol states. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 24.
`
`Figure 8 of the ’121 Patent also demonstrates that “states” refers to cache
`
`coherence protocol states. Figure 8 shows “Probe filter information” and lists
`
`various cache coherence protocol states of the MOSI protocol, corresponding to
`
`the same states depicted in Figure 7’s “State” column. This demonstrates that the
`
`claimed “probe filtering information representative of states associated with
`
`selected ones of the cache memories” is referring to “probe filtering information
`
`representative of” cache coherence protocol states, and not mere presence.
`
`Petitioners and the Board rely on a couple of passages in the ’121 Patent as
`
`supposedly supporting a broad construction of “state” not limited to cache
`
`coherence protocol states. However, these passages do not support this
`
`construction. Firstly, the Board and Petitioners point to language in the patent that
`
`states:
`
`Although the coherence directory 701 includes the four states of
`modified, owned, shared, and invalid [i.e., the MOSI protocol], it
`should be noted that particular implementations may use a different
`set of states. In one example, a system may have the five states of
`modified, exclusive, owned, shared, and invalid [i.e., MOESI
`protocol]. The techniques of the present invention can be used with a
`variety of different possible memory line states.
`See Institution Decision at 9 (quoting ’121 Patent at 14:30-36). However, as Dr.
`
`Oklobdzija opines, because this passage should be read from the perspective of one
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`skilled in the art in the field of cache coherency, the reference to “a different set of
`
`states” and a “variety of different possible memory line states” merely refers to
`
`different sets of cache coherence protocol states—that is, the invention is not
`
`limited to using the states of any specific cache coherence protocol. Oklobdzija
`Decl. ¶ 26. 1 This passage does not state or imply that states other than cache
`coherence protocol states would be encompassed by the invention. Oklobdzija
`
`Decl. ¶ 26. Importantly, all discussions and examples in the ’121 Patent of probe
`
`filtering based on information representative of states discusses cache coherence
`
`protocol states. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 26. Moreover, there is no evidence in the
`
`record, including any opinions of Petitioners’ expert, explaining how such a system
`
`could work. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 27.
`
`The Board also draws attention to a passage stating that “According to a
`
`specific embodiment, the directory of shared states may be implemented as
`
`described above with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8, and indicates where particular
`memory lines are cached within the cluster.” See Institution Decision at 8 (quoting
`
`’121 Patent at 28:29-34). The Board apparently interprets this language to mean
`
`that the “states” “indicate where particular memory lines are cached.” However,
`
`the phrase “indicates where particular memory lines are cached” is modifying the
`
`term “directory,” not the term “states.” Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 29. As Figures 7 and 8
`
`
`1 Protocols with different sets of states from the MOESI states are known in the
`
`field. An example is the Dragon protocol. Ex. 2011 at 302; Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 28.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`depict, in addition to “states,” the directory also stores “dirty data owner”
`
`information and an “occupancy vector”—and it is those items, not “states” which
`
`“indicate[] where particular memory lines are cached within the cluster.”
`
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 29. Indeed, as discussed above, the patent expressly
`
`distinguishes “where” a cache line is from its “state,” explaining that: “the cache
`coherence directory provides information about where [i.e., in which cluster the
`line is present] memory lines are cached as well as their states.” ’121 Patent at
`
`19:36-38.
`
`Thus, the teachings of the ’121 Patent and the field of cache coherency as a
`
`whole demonstrate that the term “state” in the ’121 Patent refers to cache
`
`coherency states, and that mere presence is not a “state.”
`
`B.
`
`“programmed”
`The term “programmed” is recited in claim 11 of the ’121 Patent as part of
`
`the longer phrase “each of the processing nodes is programmed to complete a
`
`memory transaction after receiving a first number of responses to a first probe.”
`
`The Board, in its decision on institution in IPR2015-00159 did not adopt any
`
`express construction of the term “programmed.” However, in a related proceeding
`the Board did cite to a definition from NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (20th ed.
`2004) defining “program” as “[i]nstructions given to a computer . . . to perform
`
`certain tasks.” IPR2015-00163, Paper 18, at 21-22 n.7.
`
`MI submits that the term “programmed” should be construed to refer to a
`
`device that has been “configured by a sequence of instructions.” This construction
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`is consistent with the dictionary definition cited by the Board and is supported by
`
`the ’121 Patent’s specification, additional dictionary definitions reflecting the
`
`ordinary meaning of this term, and by an expert declaration.
`
`The specification explains that the operating characteristics of the processing
`
`nodes are set using programming. In particular, the specification explains that:
`According to a specific embodiment, the processing nodes in a
`single cluster are programmed according to their normal setup rules
`with a few exceptions. First, the broadcast routing tables in each of the
`nodes are programmed such that the broadcasts initiated from each
`node go directly to the PFU rather than on all of the node interfaces.
`Second, the broadcast routing table in each node is programmed such
`that broadcasts originating from the PFU enter the node and are not
`forwarded to any other node. Third, each node is programmed to
`expect only one or two probe responses instead of one from each node
`in the system. More specifically, each node is programmed to expect
`one probe response if the PFU contains temporary storage to hold
`dirty data, and two if it does not.”
`’121 Patent at 28:8-24 (emphasis added). As another example, the specification
`
`states that “As mentioned above, embodiments are contemplated in which the
`requesting node is programmed to expect two responses from the PFU.” Id. at
`
`29:1-3. The references in the patent to “programmed according to their normal
`
`setup rules with a few exceptions” refers to the use of instructions executed by the
`
`processing nodes to store values in certain configuration registers or other locations
`
`to configure their operation. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 35. The specification confirms
`
`this understanding when it discusses the use of JTAG handshake registers to
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`modify the routing tables. In particular, the specification explains that “routing
`table entries can be written to the handshake registers 1908 for eventual storage in
`
`routing tables1906a-1906c.” ’121 Patent at 27:67-28:2 (emphasis added).
`
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 35. Indeed, these JTAG handshake registers and routing tables
`
`are located within the processing nodes as shown in Figure 19. Id.
`
`Various dictionary definitions confirm the ordinary meaning of the term
`
`“programmed.” For example, in its Decision on Institution, the Board cited a
`definition from NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY (20th ed. 2004) which defined
`“program” as “[i]nstructions given to a computer . . . to perform certain tasks.”
`
`IPR2015-00163, Paper 18, at 21-22 n.7. In addition, the MICROSOFT COMPUTER
`DICTIONARY defines “program” as “To create a computer program, a set of
`instructions that a computer or other device executes to perform a series of actions
`
`or a particular type of work.” Ex. 2012 at 359 (emphasis added). As a further
`
`example, the MODERN DICTIONARY OF ELECTRONICS defines “program” as “1. A
`sequence of instructions … 3. A prepared list of instructions written in a special
`
`language or code, to be carried out in sequence by a computer or other
`programmable device. 4. To design, write, and test such a set of coded
`instructions.” Ex. 2013 at 590-91 (emphasis added). As yet a further example, the
`
`MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY defines “program” as a noun as
`“6b: a sequence of coded instructions that can be inserted into a mechanism (as a
`
`computer)” and as a verb as “3a: to insert a program for (a particular action) into
`
`or as if into a mechanism.” Ex. 2014 at 931 (emphasis added). Notably, each of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`these dictionary definitions defines “program” in terms of a set or sequence of
`
`instructions.
`
`Additionally, Dr. Oklobdzija explains that the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation of the term “programmed” in the context of the ’121 Patent refers to
`
`a device that has been configured by a sequence of instructions. Oklobdzija Decl.
`
`¶¶ 33-39. For example, such instructions may be in the form of machine
`
`instructions, an assembly language program, or some other form of instructions,
`
`such as microinstructions or microcode. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 33.
`
`The Petitioners and Dr. Horst have not offered any opinion regarding the
`
`meaning of the term “programmed.” However, the Petitioners may attempt to
`
`argue that “programmed” should be construed to simply mean “configured”
`
`without requiring the use of any sequence of instructions. However, the term
`
`“programmed” cannot properly be construed as “configured” even under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Oklobdzija Decl. ¶37. There are
`
`many terms that can be used to refer generically to configuration without use of a
`
`sequence of instructions. Examples of such terms are “configured,” “set up,”
`
`“arranged,” etc. Id. In contrast, the term “programmed” indicates that some type
`of “programming”, i.e., a sequence of instructions, has been used. Id.
`
`Furthermore, the patentee used the word “configured” when the patentee meant
`
`“configured.” Id. For example, claim 9 uses the term “configured” when it states
`that the “routing table in each of the processing nodes being configured to direct
`all of the probes to the probe filtering unit.” See ’121 Patent at cl. 9 (emphasis
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 7,296,121
`IPR2015-00159
`
`
`added). Similarly, claim 10 uses the term “configured” when it states that the
`“routing table in each of the processing nodes is configured to direct all broadcasts
`to the probe filtering unit.” Id. at cl. 10 (emphasis added). In contrast, the patentee
`used the term “programmed” in claim 11. See id. at cl. 11. The fact that the
`
`patentee used the term “programmed” in some claims and “configured” in other
`
`claims indicates that the terms are intended to have a different meaning.
`Oklobdzija Decl. ¶ 37; See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc) (“Differences among claims can also be a useful guide in
`understanding the meaning of particular claim terms.”); CAE Screenplates, Inc. v.
`Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“use of
`
`different terms in the claims connotes different meanings”).
`
`Finally, even if the Board chooses not to adopt an explicit construction for
`
`“pr
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
