Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: July 1, 2015
`
`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., and AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 22
`Entered: July 1, 2015
`
`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., and AMAZON.COM, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`KERRY BEGLEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The parties named above1 (“Petitioner”) request rehearing of the Board’s
`Decision on Institution (Paper 18, “Dec.”). Paper 20 (“Req. Reh’g”). Specifically,
`Petitioner seeks rehearing of our decision declining to institute an inter partes
`review of claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’121
`patent”).
`“When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for
`an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “The burden of showing a decision
`should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision[,]” who “must
`specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or
`overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion,
`an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`For the reasons that follow, Petitioner’s request for rehearing is granted.
`
`DISCUSSION
`The Petition asserts that claim 12 of the ’121 patent is anticipated by U.S.
`Patent No. 7,698,509 B1 (Ex. 1009, “Koster”). Pet. 3. Claims 11 and 12 of the
`’121 patent recite:
`11. The computer system of claim 1 wherein each of the processing
`nodes is programmed to complete a memory transaction after
`receiving a first number of responses to a first probe, the first number
`being fewer than the number of processing nodes.
`
`
`1 The Petition also lists Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) as a
`petitioner. Paper 1 (“Pet.”), 1. After the filing of the Petition, however, STA
`merged with and into Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Paper 12. Thus, STA no
`longer exists as a separate corporate entity. Id.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`12. The computer system of claim 11 wherein the probe filtering unit
`has temporary storage associated therewith for holding read response
`data from one of the cache memories, and the first number is one.
`Ex. 1001, 31:49–57.
`
`In our Decision, we concluded that Petitioner had not shown sufficiently that
`Koster discloses “wherein each of the processing nodes is programmed to complete
`a memory transaction after receiving a first number of responses to a first probe”
`“and the first number is one,” as recited in claim 12. Dec. 22–24. We explained
`that we were “not persuaded that Petitioner has shown that Koster’s requesting
`microprocessor is ‘necessarily programmed to complete [its memory] transaction
`after receiving one response to the broadcast request for data.’” Dec. 23 (quoting
`Pet. 36–37).
`Petitioner asserts that we misapprehended the Petition’s argument with
`respect to claim 12 by focusing on the fact that Koster’s system supports memory
`transactions that may involve multiple responses instead of looking solely at
`Koster’s example featuring exactly one response. Req. Reh’g 1–2. We agree with
`Petitioner that we misapprehended the significance of Petitioner’s argument with
`respect to claim 12. We read the argument set out in the Petition as asserting that
`because one example of Koster describes completing a memory transaction after
`receiving one response, Koster’s system inherently discloses completing a memory
`transaction after receiving one response in all situations, no matter the number of
`total responses. See Pet. 36–37 (“In other words, the requesting microprocessor is
`necessarily programmed to complete memory its [sic] transaction after receiving
`one response to the broadcast request for data (i.e., probe), as recited in claim
`12.”).
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`The Request for Rehearing clarifies, however, that Petitioner’s argument is
`that the example describing exactly one response, itself, explicitly discloses
`completing a memory transaction after receiving one response. Req. Reh’g 5–6.
`Petitioner further explains that in order to be capable of performing this particular
`example, (1) Koster must necessarily be programmed to complete its memory
`transaction after receiving one response, and (2) Koster’s snoop filter necessarily
`stores, at least temporarily, a copy of that response. Id.; Pet. 36–37 (citing Ex.
`1001, 6:67–7:14; Ex. 1014 ¶ D-18). Finally, Petitioner spells out that this logic
`does not change no matter how Koster behaves during other scenarios—scenarios
`involving more than one response—which are irrelevant to Petitioner’s argument.
`Id. at 6.
`After considering Petitioner’s request, we agree that we misapprehended the
`argument in the Petition. Moreover, for purposes of this decision, we are
`persuaded that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Koster discloses “wherein
`each of the processing nodes is programmed to complete a memory transaction
`after receiving a first number of responses to a first probe” “and the first number is
`one.”
`
`Because we ended our analysis after discussing the limitation “and the first
`number is one” in the Decision to Institute, we did not address Patent Owner’s
`argument in its Preliminary Response (Paper 13, “Prelim. Resp.”) that Petitioner
`does not show sufficiently that Koster inherently discloses “temporary storage
`associated therewith for holding read response data from one of the cache
`memories,” as required by claim 12. Prelim. Resp. 37. Specifically, Patent Owner
`asserts that Koster does not disclose temporary storage for the response data
`associated with the probe filtering unit. Id. Instead, according to Patent Owner,
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`because Koster’s shadow tag memory stores only tags, updates to this memory
`“merely require storing the memory address for the transaction rather than the
`response data itself.” Id. at 37–38 (citing Ex. 1009, 6:15–17).
`We are not persuaded, on the present record, that Koster’s disclosure is as
`limited as Patent Owner asserts. To the contrary, at this stage of the proceeding,
`we are persuaded that Koster’s statement “[b]y forwarding response B through the
`snoop filter 192, the snoop filter 192 is able to update its shadow tag memory 194”
`discloses that the contents of the response are sent to the snoop filter. Ex. 1009,
`7:12–14. We also credit the testimony of Petitioner’s declarant, Dr. Robert Horst,
`that “snoop filter 192 would only be capable of performing this update operation if
`it stored a copy of the response B, even if only for long enough to recognize that
`the response was being returned to the requesting microprocessor.” Ex. 1014 ¶ D-
`19. On this record, we, therefore, agree with Petitioner that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would understand that the snoop filter necessarily includes a
`temporary storage for holding response data. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1014 ¶ D-19).
`Thus, for purposes of this decision, we are persuaded that Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that Koster inherently discloses “wherein the probe filtering
`unit has temporary storage associated therewith for holding read response data
`from one of the cache memories, and the first number is one,” as recited in
`claim 12.
`
`CONCLUSION
`In view of Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, we are persuaded that
`Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in its challenge that
`claim 12 of the ’121 patent is anticipated by Koster.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`Any discussion of facts in this decision are made only for the purposes of
`institution and are not dispositive of any issue related to any ground on which we
`institute review. The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability
`of any challenged claims. The Board’s final determination will be based on the
`record as fully developed during trial.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is granted;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Order instituting trial (Paper 18) is modified
`so that trial is instituted on the following grounds:
`1. claims 4–6, 11, and 12 as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by Koster;
`
`and
`
`and
`
`2. claims 19–24 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Koster and Smith;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial schedule remains the same as set forth
`in the Scheduling Order (Paper 19) as modified by the Joint Stipulation Regarding
`Due Dates 2, 3, and 4, filed June 2, 2015 (Paper 21).
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00163
`Patent 7,296,121 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`WALTER RENNER
`axf@fr.com
`
`
`ROBERTO DEVOTO
`IPR39521-0007IP4@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`JONATHAN BAKER
`Jbaker@farneydaniels.com
`
`BRYAN ATKINSON
`MemoryIntegrityIPR@farneydaniels.com
`batkinson@farneydaniels.com
`fdlitsupport@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`7
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
