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.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`____________
`
`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.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Apple Inc., HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.
`
`Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. (“Petitioners”)
`
`hereby respectfully request rehearing of the May 11, 2015 Decision (“Decision”),
`
`denying institution of trial. In particular, Petitioners request rehearing of the
`
`Board’s decision not to institute review with regard to Grounds 1 and 3-5 due to
`
`misapprehension by the Board of the Petition’s application of DASH to the
`
`language of independent claims 1 and 16.
`
`As explained in detail below, the Board diverges from Petitioner’s offered
`
`grouping of “processing nodes” in DASH, and consequently, arrives at the
`
`erroneous conclusion that DASH does not disclose the “probe filtering unit”
`
`recited in claims 1 and 16.
`
`In particular, when comparing the disclosure of DASH to claims 1 and 16,
`
`the Board includes the home cluster among the recited “plurality of processing
`
`nodes,” and the Board distinguishes DASH on this basis. In doing so, the Board
`
`diverges materially from the Petition, as the Petition is careful to relate the
`
`disclosure of DASH to the claims in a manner that excludes the home cluster from
`
`among the recited “plurality of processing nodes.”
`
`
`
`Accordingly, misapprehension and oversight led the Board to deny
`
`institution of the proposed grounds for unpatentability of claims 1-3, 8, 11, 12, 16,
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`19, 20 and 22 (Ground 1), claim 7 (Ground 3), claim 9 (Ground 4) and claims 17-
`
`24 (Ground 5).
`
`II. Applicable Rules
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d) states:
`
`(d) Rehearing. A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request
`for rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The burden
`of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party
`challenging the decision. The request 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. A request for rehearing does not toll
`times for taking action. Any request must be filed:
`(1) Within 14 days of the entry of a non-final decision or a decision
`to institute a trial as to at least one ground of unpatentability asserted
`in the petition; or
`(2) Within 30 days of the entry of a final decision or a decision not to
`institute a trial.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 (d)(2), this request is being filed
`
`within 30 days of the entry of a decision not to institute a trial.
`
`III. Requested Relief
`Petitioners respectfully request reconsideration of the Board’s Decision not
`
`to institute Grounds 1 and 3-5 of the Petition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`IV. Claims
`Claims 1 and 16 are reproduced below with the significant language
`
`highlighted:
`
`1. A computer system comprising a plurality of processing nodes
`
`interconnected by a first point-to-point architecture, each processing node
`
`having a cache memory associated therewith, the computer system further
`
`comprising a probe filtering unit which is operable to receive probes
`
`corresponding to memory lines from the processing nodes and to transmit
`
`the probes only to selected ones of the processing nodes with reference to
`
`probe filtering information representative of states associated with selected
`
`ones of the cache memories.
`
`
`
`16. A probe filtering unit for use in a computer system comprising a
`
`plurality of processing nodes interconnected by a first point-to-point
`
`architecture, each processing node having a cache memory associated
`
`therewith, the probe filtering unit being operable to receive probes
`
`corresponding to memory lines from the processing nodes and to transmit
`
`the probes only to selected ones of the processing nodes with reference to
`
`probe filtering information representative of states associated with selected
`
`ones of the cache memories.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
` (emphasis added).
`
`
`V. Argument
`
`In rejecting Grounds 1 and 3-5, the Board’s Decision misapprehends the
`
`Petition’s application of DASH to the “plurality of processing nodes” feature of
`
`claims 1 and 16, and, in doing so, arrives at the erroneous conclusion that DASH
`
`does not disclose the “probe filtering unit” recited by those claims. Decision at pp.
`
`14, 18 and 19. In particular, in relating DASH to the claims, the Decision includes
`
`all clusters of DASH’s system, including its home cluster, among the recited
`
`“plurality of processing nodes.” Decision at p. 14. By including DASH’s home
`
`cluster among the “plurality,” the Decision concludes that DASH’s home cluster
`
`directory board, which is asserted in the Petition as corresponding to the recited
`
`“probe filtering unit,” fails to satisfy the features of claims 1 and 16 because it is
`
`not “operable … to transmit probes only to selected ones of the [plurality of]
`
`processing nodes with reference to probe filtering information.” Id.
`
`The Board arrives at this conclusion by recognizing that the directory board
`
`of the home cluster of DASH does not consult its directory memory (probe
`
`filtering information) to filter requests (probes) when it issues read and read-
`
`exclusive requests on the home cluster’s bus. Id. As such, while the directory
`
`board may transmit received requests to selected ones of remote clusters
`
`(processing nodes) with reference its directory memory (probe filtering
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`information), it additionally transmits the received requests to the home cluster
`
`itself, which, importantly, is not selected by the directory board with reference to
`
`its directory memory (probe filtering information). As a result of this additional
`
`transmission that occurs without reference to the directory memory, the Board
`
`concludes that DASH fails to “disclose the relevant limitation in claims 1 and 16,
`
`which expressly requires that the probe filtering unit be operable to transmit these
`
`requests (‘probes’) only to selected clusters (‘processing nodes’) based on the
`
`directory memory (‘probe filtering information’).” Id (emphasis in original).
`
`The Board’s reasoning, however, fails to appreciate that the Petition
`
`explicitly excludes the home cluster from the recited “plurality of processing
`
`nodes.” Importantly, at pages 25 and 26, the Petition indicates that “any of the
`
`other clusters of the DASH system” (emphasis added) may act as local clusters
`
`with respect to “a particular home cluster” by sending read requests to that
`
`particular home cluster and that this group of “other clusters” corresponds to the
`
`recited “plurality of processing nodes.” See Petition at pp. 25 and 26 (“Thus, any
`
`of the other clusters of the DASH system may act as a local cluster that submits a
`
`read request to a particular home cluster to request any of the memory blocks that
`
`have physical memory addresses corresponding to the portion of the shared
`
`memory stored at the home cluster. The directory board (probe filtering unit) of a
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`home cluster is therefore operable to receive read requests (probes) from a plurality
`
`of local clusters (processing nodes).”
`
`As such, with respect to a home cluster directory board (probe filtering unit)
`
`of “a particular home cluster” in DASH, the Petition asserts that the “plurality of
`
`processing nodes” recited in claims 1 and 16 correspond to the “other clusters,”
`
`i.e., the clusters of the DASH system that are remote from the particular home
`
`cluster and that are capable of acting as local clusters with respect to the particular
`
`home cluster by transmitting read requests to the particular home cluster. See
`
`Petition at pp. 24-27. Such “other clusters,” by definition, exclude the home
`
`cluster.1
`
`
`1 The Petition at page 20 refers to each cluster of processors of DASH as
`
`corresponding to a “processing node.” This statement is consistent with the
`
`assertions made on pages 25 and 26 of the Petition noted above in that any cluster
`
`of DASH’s system is a local/requesting cluster with respect to a particular home
`
`cluster to which it sends a read request after failing to satisfy the request locally in
`
`accordance with FIG. 4 of DASH. Of course, after having identified a particular
`
`home cluster as the cluster that receives the read requests, that particular home
`
`cluster is excluded from the requesting local clusters (i.e., it is not one of “the other
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`
`Accordingly, knowing that the recited “plurality of processors” corresponds
`
`to the group of clusters exclusive of the home cluster (i.e., “the other clusters of the
`
`DASH system”), we now examine how the home cluster directory board transmits
`
`received probes and find that the claim language is met. Specifically, the Petition
`
`properly asserts that the home cluster directory board (probe filtering unit) is
`
`operable to receive requests (probes) from the “other clusters” (plurality of
`
`processing nodes), which are capable of acting as the local clusters shown in FIG.
`
`4 of DASH, and transmit the requests (probes) only to selected ones of the “other
`
`clusters” (plurality of processing nodes) with reference to its directory memory
`
`(probe filtering information)2, thereby satisfying the relevant features of claims 1
`
`
`clusters”) as noted in page 25 of the Petition and, therefore, is also excluded from
`
`the recited “plurality of processing nodes.”
`
`2 See Petition at p. 26 “The directory board (probe filtering unit) of a home cluster
`
`is therefore operable to receive read requests (probes) from a plurality of local
`
`clusters (processing nodes). … The directory board (probe filtering unit) of the
`
`home cluster is further operable to transmit those received read requests (probes)
`
`that are directed to memory blocks in the dirty-remote state to selected ones of the
`
`clusters (processing nodes) that [are determined based on the probe filtering
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`and 16. See Petition at pp. 25-26. Moreover, because the Board misapprehended
`
`the Petition’s application of DASH to the language of claims 1 and 16, the DASH
`
`grounds were improperly denied institution. Petitioner respectfully asks the Board
`
`to reconsider its Decision and institute the Petition’s proposed Grounds 1 and 3-5
`
`based on DASH in the pending inter partes review.
`
`
`
`
`information to] own the corresponding dirty memory blocks [and thereby is
`
`operable to filter the requests instead of broadcast the requests to all of the “other
`
`clusters”]. See Ex. 1014 at ¶ C-23. The read request process flow of the DASH
`
`system is illustrated in the following copy of FIG. 4.”). See also Petition at p. 27
`
`(which shows the “Local Cluster” block of FIG. 4 of DASH disclosing that the
`
`“Read Request” is sent from the “Local Cluster” to the remote “Home Cluster”
`
`when the CPU of the Local Cluster is “forced to retry” and that the “Home
`
`Cluster” then selectively transmits/forwards the received “Read Request” to a
`
`selected one of the “other clusters” of DASH’s system that is determined based on
`
`the directory memory of the home cluster directory board to be the “dirty cluster”
`
`that owns the requested dirty memory line. )
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`VI. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request rehearing of
`
`Grounds 1 and 3-5 of the Petition and respectfully request that inter partes review
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Roberto J. Devoto /
`Roberto Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`
`be instituted based on the same.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` .
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: 6-10-15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00172
`Patent 7,296,121
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4)(i), the undersigned certifies that on June
`
`10, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71 was provided by electronic mail to the Patent Owner
`
`by serving the correspondence e-mail addresses of record as follows:
`
`Jonathan D. Baker
`Farney Daniels PC
`411 Borel Avenue, Suite 350
`San Mateo, California 94402
`
`Bryan Atkinson
`Farney Daniels PC
`800 S. Austin, Suite 200
`Georgetown, TX 78626
`
`Email: jbaker@farneydaniels.com
`Email: batkinson@farneydaniels.com
`Email: fdlitsupport@farneydaniels.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth
`Edward Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(202)-626-6420
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
