P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`Washington, DC
`
`
`BEFORE THE COMMISSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-941
`
`OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT INVESTIGATIONS’
` PETITION FOR REVIEW OF THE INITIAL DETERMINATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN GRAPHICS PROCESSING
`CHIPS, SYSTEMS ON A CHIP, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
`
`Margaret D. Macdonald, Director
`Anne Goalwin, Supervisory Attorney
`Yoncha L. Kundupoglu, Investigative Attorney
`Office of Unfair Import Investigations
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW, Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20436
`202-205-3323
`202-205-2158 (facsimile)
`
`
`
`January 4, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0001
`
`

`
`P U B L I
`
`
`
`C V E R S II O N
`
`
`
`TABLE OOF CONTEENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`........................................ORY .............AL HISTOROCEDURAON AND PRI.  INTRRODUCTIO ...... 2 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AL TO U.S. MATERIAOF FACTS II.  STATTEMENT O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT 77,804,734 ............................... 3 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`....................................................................................................DARDS .......III. LEGGAL STAND ...... 6 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`................................................................................for Review ..or Petition fA.  SStandard fo ...... 6 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`................................................................................nstruction ....f Claim ConB.  TThe Law of ...... 7 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`................................................................................34 ................NO. 7,804,73IV. U.S. PATENT N ...... 8 
`
`
`
`
`
`” Should be rm “Mode”he Claim Teruction of thA.  TThe Constru
`
`
`Reviewed. ........................... 9 
`1. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsicc evidence suupports consstruing “modde” as “conffiguration reqquired by thhe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memoryy-device type.” ................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`................................................................................Claim. ...........a.  Woords of the C .... 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`................................................................................ption. ...........b.  Written Descrip .... 14 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ure to alid for failum that is invaads to a claimf “mode” leay meaning of2.  Plain layy dictionary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`provide an adequatee written desscription andd/or enablemment. ..................................... 19 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`....................................................................................................nt ................B.  IInfringemen .... 19 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`............................................................ng ................chnical Pronndustry-TecC.  DDomestic In .... 20 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`........................................................................................................................D.  VValidity ...... .... 21 
`
`
`
`.......................................................................................................................V.  CONNCLUSION .... 22 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1018-0002
`
`

`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases 
`
`Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 19
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 7, 16, 17
`
`Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int’l, Inc.,
`423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................................ 8, 18
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc.,
`52 F.3d 969 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ......................................... 7
`
`O’Reilly v. Morse,
`56 U.S. 62 (1853) ..................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................................. 7, 8, 17, 18
`
`Shire Dev., LLC v. Watson Pharm., Inc.,
`787 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................. 8
`
`SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 8770164 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015) ........................................................................... 17
`
`SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,
`727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................. 7
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ............................................................................................................................. 21
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................. 19
`
`Rules 
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.43 .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`19 C.F.R. § 210.45 .......................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0003
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Commission Decisions 
`
`Certain Acid-Washed Denim Garments and Accessories, Inv. No. 337-TA-324, Comm’n
`Opinion at 5 (Nov. 1992) ............................................................................................................ 6
`
`Certain Bearings and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-469, Comm’n Op., USITC Pub.
`3736 (Dec. 2004) ........................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Certain Flash Memory Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-382, Comm’n
`Op., USITC Pub. 3046 (July 1997) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate Yarn and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-457,
`Comm’n Op., USITC Pub. 3550 (Oct. 2002). ............................................................................ 6
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0004
`
`

`
`
`
`Abbreviation
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`‘349 Patent
`
`U.S. Patent No.6,173,349 (JX-0002)
`
`‘385 Patent
`‘734 Patent
`‘776 Patent
`ALJ
`Complainants
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,147,385 (JX-0001)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,804,734 (JX-0003)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,056,776
`
`Administrative Law Judge
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor,
`LLC, collectively
`Complainants’ Post Hearing Brief (EDIS Doc. ID No. 565339)
`Compls. Br.
`Complainants’ Exhibit
`CX
`Deposition Transcript
`Dep. Tr.
`EDIS Doc. ID No. EDIS Document Identification Number
`GPU
`Graphics Processing Unit
`Jacob
`Dr. Bruce Jacob
`Lai
`U.S. Patent No. 7,032,092 (RX-0024)
`McAlexander
`Joseph C. McAlexander
`PTO
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Q/A
`Question and Answer
`Respondents
`NVIDIA Corporation, Biostar Microtech International Corp., BioStar
`Microtech (USA) Corp., Elitegroup Computer Systems Co. Ltd.,
`Elitegroup Computer Systems, Inc., EVGA Corporation, Fuhu, Inc.,
`Jaton Corp., Mad Catz, Inc., OUYA, Inc., Sparkle Computer Co. Ltd.,
`Toradex, Inc., and ZOTAC USA Inc., collectively
`Respondents’ Post-Hearing Brief (EDIS Doc. ID No. 565335)
`Rebuttal Witness Statement
`Respondents’ Exhibit
`System on Chip
`Hearing Transcript
`Witness Statement
`
`Resps. Br.
`RWS
`RX
`SoC
`Tr.
`WS
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0005
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I
`
`
`
`C V E R S II O N
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`INNTRODUCCTION ANDD PROCEDURAL HISSTORY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inn the complaaint giving riise to this invvestigation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Ellectronics Coo., Ltd. and
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsungg Austin Semmiconductor,, LLC (collectively, “Coomplainants””) alleged thaat NVIDIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Corporattion, Biostar Microtech IInternationall Corp., Biosstar Microtecch (USA) Coorp., Elitegr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`oup
`
`
`
`Computeer Systems CCo. Ltd., Elittegroup Commputer Systemms, Inc., EVVGA Corpor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ation, Fuhu,
`
` Inc.,
`
`
`
`Inc., Wikipaad,
`
`
`
`Jaton Corp., Mad Catz, Inc., OUYYA, Inc., Spparkle Compputer Co. Ltdd., Toradex,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inc., ZOTTAC Internaational (MCOO) Ltd., and ZOTAC USSA, Inc. (“Reespondents””) infringe foour
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patents oowned by Coomplainants.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThis investigaation was instituted on DDecember 300, 2014. 79 FFed. Reg. 788477-78
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Decembber 30, 2014)). An evidenntiary hearinng was held oon August 1
`
`
`
`
`
`8-21, 2015.22 The
`
`
`
`Administtrative Law Judge’s (“AALJ’s”) Finaal Initial Deteermination ffound that thhere has beenn a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`violationn of Section 3337 with reggard to three patents.3 Seee Initial Deetermination (“ID”), dateed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Decembeer 22, 2015 aat 379.
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe Office off Unfair Impport Investigaations (“OUUII”) petitionns for revieww of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constructtion of one cclaim term inn U.S. Patentt No. 7,804,7734 (“the ‘7734 Patent”)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`under
`
`
`
`Commisssion Rule 2110.43(b)(1)(iii), and assocciated determminations unnder Commisssion Rule
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 On Julyy 1, 2015, thee Commissioon determined not to revview an initi
`
`
`al determinaation terminaating
`
`
`
`the invesstigation withh respect to oone of thosee patents. IDD at p. 2 (citiing Order Noo. 9 (June 9,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2015), affff’d, Notice oof Commissiion Determinnation Not t
`
`
`o Review ann Initial Deteermination
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Terminatting the Inveestigation wiith Respect tto U.S. Patennt No. 7,0566,776 (July 1
`, 2015)).
`
`
`
`2 Additioonal details cconcerning thhe proceduraal history aree set forth inn the ID. Seee ID at pp. 11-3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Followiing the withddrawal of thee ‘776 Patennt, whether RRespondentss infringed ceertain claimss of
`
`
`
`
`the followwing patentss remains at issue: U.S PPatent No. 6
`
`
`
`,147,385 (“tthe ‘385 Pateent), U.S. Paatent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘734 pat7,804,734 (“tPatent No. 7”), and U.S. PNo. 6,1733,349 (“the ‘349 Patent”
`ent”),
`
`
`
`(collectivvely the “Asserted Patennts”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0006
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I
`
`
`
`C V E R S II O N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`210.43(bb)(1)(i) and (ii). As explaained in thiss brief, OUIII is of the vieew that the cclaim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`constructtion for one patent claimm term at issuue is in errorr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OOUII submitss that the Coommission shhould determmine the corrrect claim coonstruction ffor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the ‘734 Patent claimm term at issuue, and revieew and amennd the ID’s ffindings of innfringementt,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tion. im constructnder that clac industry unvalidity aand domestic
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENNT OF FACCTS MATERRIAL TO UU.S. PATENNT 7,804,7344
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe ‘734 Pateent is entitle
`
`
`
`
`
`d “Data Stroobe Buffer annd Memory
`
`
`
`
`
`System Inclluding the Saame”
`
`
`
`
`
`and issueed from an appplication fiiled on Auguust 19, 2008,, claiming prriority to Koorean Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicatiion No. 10-22007-00856990 which waas filed on AAugust 24, 20007. ID at 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0003 (‘7334 Patent). TThe ‘734 Paatent was issuued on Septeember 28, 20010. ID at 110, 274-275;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`0003 (‘7334 Patent).
`
`
`
`memory conntrollers.
`
`0, 274-275;
`
`JX-
`
` JX-
`
`
`
`TThe ‘734 Pateent concernss data strobe buffer circuuits found in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Memory controllers pprocess dataa strobe signaals, which arre signals in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`dicating the
`
`
`
`start of dataa
`
`
`
`transfers to or from DDDR SDRAMM memoriess. ID at 10,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`274-275; CXX-0008C (MMcAlexanderr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WS) at Q
`
`
`
`Q/A 17; see RRX-0002C (Jacob WS) aat Q/A 35, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Before thhe ‘734 Pate
`
`nt, multiple
`
`
`
`memory controllers wwere neededd to interfacee with differeent types of DDDR SDRAAM, each of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1, lns. 31-42tent) at col. 103 (‘734 Patrties. JX-000ferent properwhich maay have diffe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`; CX-0008CC
`
`
`
`(McAlexxander WS) aat Q/A 18-199; RX-0002CC (Jacob WSS) at Q/A 522-55. The ’7734 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`disclosess a data strobbe buffer thaat can operatee in differennt modes andd thus allowss for a singlee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`memory controller too interface wwith multiple types of DDDR SDRAMM. ID at 274--275; JX-00003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(‘734 Pattent) col. 1, llns. 15-19, 440-42 and 466-48; CX-00
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8C (McAlexxander WS)
`
`at Q/A 17-1
`
`9;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RX-00022C (Jacobs WWS) at Q/A 552.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0007
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`Complainants allege infringement of independent claim 1 and claim 3, which depends
`
`from claim 1, by graphic processing units (“GPUs”) and system on chips (“SoCs”) sold, or
`
`incorporated into products sold, by Respondents. ID at 9-10; Complaint at ¶¶ 128-161; Order
`
`23: Initial Determination at 2 (Aug. 26, 2015).
`
`Claim 1 is set forth below in its entirety with the claim term that is the subject of OUII’s
`
`petition for review in bold italics—
`
`
`1. A data strobe buffer comprising:
`
`
`a first input/output node;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` a
`
` first driver coupled to the first input/output node,
`
`the first driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the first
`input/output node during a write operation;
`
`and a first receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal from the
`first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a read
`operation when the data strobe buffer is in a first or second mode,
`
`the first receiver configured to compare the second data strobe signal with
`a first reference voltage and output a result of the comparison as the third
`data strobe signal when the data strobe buffer is in the first mode,
`
`the receiver further configured to not compare the second data strobe
`signal with the first reference voltage when the data strobe buffer is in the
`second mode.
`
`
`
`Each party’s proposed construction for the disputed claim term “mode” is set forth in the table
`
`
`
`below. ID at 281.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0008
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`
`mode
`
`Respondents’ Construction
`configuration required by the
`memory-device type
`
`Complainants’ Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning.
`If the ALJ determines that this
`term requires construction:
`manner of operation
`
`The ID adopted Complainants’ proposed construction for the claim term “mode,” i.e., its
`
`OUII’s Construction
`configuration required by the
`memory-device type
`
`plain dictionary definition, as “manner of operation.” ID at 282, 284 (citing CX-0359 (McGraw-
`
`Hill Dictionary of Electrical and Computer Engineering) at 370). While acknowledging that
`
`“mode” is a general term without a recognized technical meaning by those of ordinary skill in the
`
`field of the ‘734 Patent, the ID found that (i) the words of claim 1 of the ‘734 Patent, (ii) the ‘734
`
`Patent’s specification, and (iii) the Korean patent application from which the ‘734 Patent
`
`application claims priority support construing “mode” consistent with the breadth of its lay
`
`dictionary definition. ID at 283-288.
`
` The ID found no support in the claim language for the construction Respondents and
`
`OUII proposed, and determined that it would exclude the embodiment of the invention illustrated
`
`in Figure 4 of the ‘734 Patent. ID at 284-285. The ID also rejected the construction proposed by
`
`Respondents and OUII as based upon an implicit definition for the claim term “mode” for which
`
`the specification did not provide clear or explicit support. ID at 283. In particular, the ID found
`
`that the “mode” in which the claimed data strobe buffer operates is not necessarily tied to, or
`
`determined by, the type of memory device the claimed data strobe buffer supports. ID at 287.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0009
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
` LIII. LEGAL STA
`
`
`
`ANDARDS
`
`P U B L I
`
`
`
`C V E R S II O N
`
`
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Standdard for Pettition for Reeview
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Commission Rule 210.433(b) states thhat a party seeeking revieww of an initiaal determinaation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`must specify for eachh issue for wwhich it seekss review:
`
`
`
`
`(ii)
`
`(iii)
`
`
`
`precedent, rrule or law, oor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that a finding or connclusion of mmaterial factt is clearly errroneous;
`
`
`
`
`that a leegal conclusiion is erroneeous, withouut governing
`
`
`
`
`constituutes an abusee of discretioon; or
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(iiii) that the determinatioon is one afffecting Commmission poliicy.
`
`
`
`19 C.F.RR. § 210.43(bb)(1). A petiition for reviiew will be ggranted “if itt appears thaat an error orr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`abuse of the type desscribed in paaragraph (b)((1) of this se
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ction is pressent or if the
`
`
`
`petition raisses a
`
`
`
`policy matter conneccted with thee initial deterrmination, wwhich the Commmission thhinks it necesssary
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`or approppriate to adddress.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.443(d)(2).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThe Commisssion reviewss an initial deeterminationn under a de
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`novo standaard. See Cerrtain
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Polyethylene Terephtthalate Yarnn and Produccts Containinng Same, Invv. No. 337-TTA-457,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`up an initiall
`
`A C
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ission takes e the Commi002). “Once3550 (Oct. 20SITC Pub. 3Comm’nn Op. at 9, US
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determinnation for revview, the Commission haas ‘all the poowers whichh it would haave in makinng the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`initial determination,,’ except where the issuees are limitedd on notice oor by rule.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Memory Circuits andd Products CContaining SSame, Inv. NNo. 337-TA-3382, Comm’’n Op. at 14,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certain Flaash
`
`
`
`
`USITC PPub. 3046 (Ju
`
`
`
`uly 1997) (qquoting Certaain Acid-Waashed Denimm Garments aand Accessoories,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-3244, Comm’n OOpinion at 5 (Nov. 19922)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TThis Commisssion practice is consisteent with the AAdministratiive Procedurre Act. See
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certain BBearings andd Packagingg Thereof, Innv. No. 337-TTA-469, Commm’n Op. att 6, USITC PPub.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3736 (Deec. 2004). TThus, when reeviewing, “tthe Commisssion may afffirm, reversee, modify, seet
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aside or rremand for ffurther proceeedings, in wwhole or in ppart, the initi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`al determinaation of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0010
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`administrative law judge. The Commission may also make any findings or conclusions that in its
`
`judgment are proper based on the record in the proceeding.” 19 C.F.R. § 210.45(c).
`
`B.
`
`The Law of Claim Construction
`
`Claim construction is a question of law. Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc., 52 F.3d
`
`969, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
`
`The words of a patent claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning to
`
`a person of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc). The “ordinary meaning” of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan
`
`after reading the entire patent. Id. at 1321. There are two exceptions to this general rule: 1)
`
`when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee
`
`disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.”
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations
`
`omitted). For example, disclaimer can be affected through repeated and definitive remarks in the
`
`written description. SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
`
`(citing Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001) (“[A] claim term may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of
`
`redefinition … the specification may define claim terms by implication ….”)).
`
`When construing disputed claim language in a patent, the intrinsic evidence in the record
`
`is considered first—the claim language, written description, and prosecution history.
`
`SkinMedica,727 F.3d at 1195. Extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, technical or lay
`
`dictionaries, may also be considered. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However, extrinsic evidence is
`
`less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0011
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I
`
`
`
`C V E R S II O N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`languagee and is unlikkely to resultt in a reliablee interpretatiion of patennt claim scoppe unless
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`considereed in the conntext of the iintrinsic eviddence. Id. att 1317-1319
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inn its en bancc decision in Phillips, thee U.S. Courtt of Appeals
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`
`
`for the Fedeeral Circuit
`
`
`
`clarified the appropriiate use of diictionaries inn claim consstruction. Frree Motion FFitness, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`3 F.3d 1343, Cybex Innt’l, Inc., 423
`
`
`
`
`1348 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (
`
`
`
`
`
`citing Phillipips, 415 F.3dd at 1320). AAny
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reliance oon dictionaryy definitionss to construee claim termss must be in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accord withh the intrinsicc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`evidence. Id. Underr Phillips, thee rule that a court will gi
`
`
`
`
`s l range of itsive a claim tterm the full
`
`
`
`
`
`ordinary meaning does not meann that a claimm term will ppresumptivelly receive itss broadest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`tiple dictionegate of multor the aggredictionarry definition
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ary definitioons. Id. Ratther, where
`
`
`
`
`
`referencee to dictionarries is appropriate, the taask is to scruutinize the inntrinsic evideence to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`determinne the most aappropriate ddefinition. Idd. at 1349. IIn the end, thhe constructiion that stayys
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`true to thhe claim langguage and mmost naturallyy aligns withh the patent’ss descriptionn of the inve
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`will be thhe correct coonstruction. Shire Dev., LLC v. Watsson Pharm.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Fed. Cirr. 2015) (citi
`
`
`ng Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`1316).
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
` UU.S. PATENNT NO. 7,80
`4,734
`
`
`
`CComplainantss allege Resppondents’ grraphic proce
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ssor chips (GGPUs), systeems on chipss
`
`ntion
`
`
`
` Inc., 787 F..3d 1359, 13364
`
`
`
`
`
`(SoCs) annd devices ccontaining saame infringee the ‘734 Paatent’s indeppendent claimm 1 and claimm 3,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`which deepends from claim 1. IDD at 1; Complaint at 128--156, 159-1661; Order 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: Initial
`
`
`
`Determinnation at 2 (AAug. 26, 20115). OUII iss of the vieww the evidencce shows thaat under the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`correct coonstruction oof the claim term “modee,” claims 1 aand 3 of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘734 Patentt are not
`
`
`
`infringedd and have beeen shown too be invalid.. OUII is alsso of the vieew that the evvidence showws
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`that Commplainants haave not estabblished a dommestic indusstry with regaard to the ‘7734 Patent wwhen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`those claims are propperly construued. OUII seeeks review
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`of the ID’s ccontrary finddings.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0012
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`A.
`
`
`The Construction of the Claim Term “Mode” Should be Reviewed.
`
`“Mode” is a general term without a recognized technical definition by those of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. ID at 284-285; Jacob Tr. 670-671, 673. As a result, the ID construed the claim
`
`term “mode” in independent claim 1 of the ‘734 Patent according to its broad ordinary dictionary
`
`definition to mean “manner of operation.” ID at 282, 284. However, the breadth of that
`
`construction (i) is inconsistent with the words of the patent claim, (ii) is not supported by the
`
`‘734 Patent specification, and (iii) is derived from extrinsic evidence without determining if it is
`
`in accord with evidence intrinsic to the ‘734 Patent.
`
` The construction for “mode” proposed by Complainants and adopted by the ID gives the
`
`data strobe buffer recited in claim 1 of the ‘734 Patent a scope that allows its “modes” to be
`
`dynamically configured and re-configured during operation based upon an unlimited range of
`
`criteria. Compls. Br. at 128 (citing CX-4078C (McAlexander RWS) at Q/A 13, 15) (EDIS Doc.
`
`ID No. 565339); Resps. Br. at 178 (citing CX-4078C (McAlexander RWS) at Q/A 13, 15) (EDIS
`
`Doc. ID No. 565335); CX-00008C (McAlexander WS) at Q/A 19-20; RX-0192 (Jacob RWS) at
`
`Q/A 15-17, 88-91. Evidence intrinsic to the ‘734 Patent does not support such a broad claim
`
`scope.
`
`In contrast, the construction for “mode” proposed by Respondents and OUII gives the
`
`data strobe buffer recited in claim 1 of the ‘734 Patent a scope limited to “modes” that are
`
`determined by the type of memory device the data strobe buffer supports. Resps. Br. at 176-179;
`
`Compls. Br. at 128-129. Furthermore, under Respondents’ and OUII’s proposed construction,
`
`the “mode” in which the data strobe buffer claimed by the ‘734 Patent operates is set once it is
`
`placed in a particular system and does not change. Such a data strobe buffer may be referred to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0013
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`as a “set it and forget it” type of device. Resps. Br. at 179; Compls. Br. at 129. All of the
`
`evidence intrinsic to the ‘734 Patent supports this narrower construction for “mode.”
`
`1.
`
`Intrinsic evidence supports construing “mode” as “configuration
`required by the memory-device type.”
`
`The intrinsic evidence supports construing “mode” as a “configuration required by the
`
`memory-device type”—i.e., configuration of the data strobe buffer required by the type of
`
`memory device with which it is interfacing.
`
`a.
`
`Words of the Claim.
`
`Claim 1 is set forth below with “mode” in bold italics and words in the claim that support
`
`the construction Respondents and OUII propose for “mode” underlined—
`
`1. A data strobe buffer comprising:
`
`
`a first input/output node;
`
` a
`
` first driver coupled to the first input/output node,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the first driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the first
`input/output node during a write operation;
`
`and a first receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal from the
`first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a read
`operation when the data strobe buffer is in a first or second mode,
`
`the first receiver configured to compare the second data strobe signal with
`a first reference voltage and output a result of the comparison as the third
`data strobe signal when the data strobe buffer is in the first mode,
`
`the receiver further configured to not compare the second data strobe signal with
`the first reference voltage when the data strobe buffer is in the second mode.
`
`The field of the ‘734 Patent’s invention is semiconductor memory devices and a data strobe
`
`buffer that is capable of interfacing with different types of semiconductor memory devices. JX-
`
`0003 (‘734 Patent) at col. 1, lns. 15-18 (emphasis added). The data strobe buffer recited in claim
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0014
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`1 processes data strobe signals, which are signals that time the capture and transfer of data to and
`
`from memory devices. CX-0008C (McAlexander WS) at Q/A 17.
`
`The language of claim 1 requires the “first driver” element to output a first data strobe
`
`signal “during a write operation” and the “first receiver” to output a third data strobe signal
`
`“during a read operation.” In connection with memory devices, “read operation” refers to the act
`
`of retrieving data stored in a memory device whereas “write operation” refers to transmitting
`
`data to a memory device for storage. The first receiver thus generates the third data strobe signal
`
`to time the capture of data that is being retrieved from a memory device. See CX-0008C
`
`(McAlexander WS) at Q/A 17. The first receiver is configured one way in the “first mode” to
`
`produce the signal timing the capture of data that is being retrieved from a memory device, and
`
`configured another way to capture data being retrieved from a memory device in the “second
`
`mode.” Id. at Q/A 29. Thus, the mode determines how the first receiver will be configured to
`
`produce the third data strobe signal that will be used to time the capture of data being retrieved
`
`from a memory device.
`
`In the first mode, the language of claim 1 requires comparison of a second data strobe
`
`signal with a first reference voltage to generate the third data strobe signal. The ‘734 Patent
`
`specification notes that Double-Data-Rate (DDR) Synchronous Dynamic Random Access
`
`Memory (SDRAM) devices may use memory controllers with a data strobe buffer that compares
`
`a data strobe signal with a reference voltage. JX-0003 at col. 1, lns. 33-36 and col. 5, lns. 13-16.
`
`The ‘734 Patent specification does not identify any other parameter or criteria, other than a DDR
`
`SDRAM, that could require the claimed data strobe buffer to operate in the first mode. RX-
`
`0002C (Jacobs WS) at Q/A 116. Thus, the first mode of the data strobe buffer generates the third
`
`data strobe signal in a way that supports DDR SDRAM devices.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0015
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`In the second mode, the language of claim 1 requires that the first receiver not compare a
`
`second data strobe signal with a reference voltage when generating the third data strobe signal.
`
`The ‘734 Patent specification notes that producing a strobe signal to capture data that is being
`
`retrieved from memory without comparing the second data strobe signal to the reference voltage
`
`may be an operating mode when the data strobe buffer interfaces with a Mobile Double-Data-
`
`Rate (MDDR) SDRAM, which is a different type of memory device than a DDR SDRAM. JX-
`
`0003 (‘734 Patent) at col. 1, lns. 21-31 and col. 4, lns. 44-51. The ‘734 Patent specification does
`
`not identify any other parameter, other than the MDDR SDRAM, that could require the claimed
`
`data strobe buffer to operate in the second mode. RX-0002C (Jacobs WS) at Q/A 118-119.
`
`When the data strobe buffer of claim 1 is in a “first mode” it is configured one way to
`
`generate a third data strobe signal to time the capture of data from one type of memory device
`
`(DDR SDRAM), but when it is in a “second mode,” it is configured a different way to generate
`
`that third data strobe signal so that it may capture data from a different type of memory device
`
`(MDDR SDRAM). Thus, the language of claim 1 supports construing “mode” as “configuration
`
`required by the memory-device type.”
`
`The propriety of the construction proposed by Respondents and OUII is evident when the
`
`proposed construction “configuration required by the memory-device type” is substituted back
`
`into claim 1 of the ‘734 Patent, as set forth below—
`
`1. A data strobe buffer comprising:
`
`
`a first input/output node;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` a
`
` first driver coupled to the first input/output node,
`
`the first driver configured to output a first data strobe signal to the first
`input/output node during a write operation;
`
`12
`
`
`
`Ex. 1018-0016
`
`

`
`
`
`P U B L I C V E R S I O N
`
`
`and a first receiver coupled to receive a second data strobe signal from the
`first input/output node and output a third data strobe signal during a read
`operation when the data strobe buffer is in a first or second [configuration
`required by the memory-device type,]
`
`
`
`the first receiver configured to compare the second data strobe signal with
`a first reference voltage and output a result of the comparison as the third
`data strobe signal when the data strobe buffer is in the first [configuration
`required by the memory-device type,]
`
`the receiver further configured to not compare the second data strobe signal with
`the first reference voltage when the data strobe buffer is in the second
`[configuration required by the memory-device type.]
`
`
`The ID errs in concluding that “the claim language describes ‘mode’ as one of two
`
`alternative conditions or methods of operation of a device.” ID at 284. The words of the claim
`
`do not support construing “mode” consistent with its dictionary definition, “manner of
`
`operation”, to encompass an unlimited number of manners of operation. For example, power-
`
`down, sleep and hibernate are all “modes” commonly associated with electronic devices. These
`
`manners of operation also fall within the scope of the ID’s construction for “mode.” However,
`
`neither memory controllers nor data strobe buffers generate signals to time capture of data for
`
`read or write operations to and from memo