By: Vivek Ganti (vg@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 71,368; and
`
`Gregory Ourada (go@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 55,516
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC.,
`MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD,
`MSI COMPUTER CORP.,
`GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., AND
`G.B.T., INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KINGLITE HOLDINGS INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2015-TBA
`
`U.S. Patent 6,401,202
`
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,401,202
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`Gregory Ourada (go@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 55,516
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`AMERICAN MEGATRENDS, INC.,
`MICRO-STAR INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD,
`MSI COMPUTER CORP.,
`GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., AND
`G.B.T., INC.
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`KINGLITE HOLDINGS INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_________________
`
`Case IPR2015-TBA
`
`U.S. Patent 6,401,202
`
`_________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES
`REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,401,202
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. Overview .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`III. The 202 Patent .................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`Summary of the Technology ......................................................................... 1
`
`B.
`
`The claimed embodiments of the 202 Patent ................................................ 3
`
`C. Challenge to the validity of the 202 Patent ................................................... 4
`
`IV. Mandatory Notices (42 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1)) ....................................................... 4
`
`D. Notice of related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2)) ........................................ 4
`
`E. Real party-in-interest (42 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1)) ............................................. 5
`
`F. Notice of Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4)) ....... 6
`
`V. Grounds for Standing ....................................................................................... 6
`
`VI. Statement of Relief Requested ......................................................................... 6
`
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 7
`
`A. Applicable Principles of Claim Construction. .............................................. 7
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Level of Skill in the Art ................................................................................. 7
`
`Terms to be Construed .................................................................................. 7
`
`1. “Task” ............................................................................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`2. “interrupt controller” ..................................................................................... 8
`
`VIII.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)) ..................................... 9
`
`A. Ground 1: AMIBIOS anticipates challenged claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-31,
`
`39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 ......................................................................... 13
`
`1. Step 1 of representative claim 1 .................................................................. 14
`
`2. Step 2 of representative claim 1 .................................................................. 16
`
`3. Step 3 of representative claim 1 .................................................................. 17
`
`B. Ground 2: Pearce anticipates challenged Claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-31, 39,
`
`and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. .............................................................................. 24
`
`C. Ground 3: AMIBIOS and Stanley render challenged claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12,
`
`13, 16-18, 22, 23, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-38 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). . 32
`
`1. Claims 2, 12, 22, and 32 .............................................................................. 34
`
`2. Claims 3, 13, 23, and 33 .............................................................................. 36
`
`3. Claims 6, 16, 26, and 36 .............................................................................. 36
`
`4. Claims 7, 17, 27, and 37 .............................................................................. 37
`
`5. Claims 8, 18, 28, and 38 .............................................................................. 37
`
`D. Ground 4: AMIBIOS, Stanley, and Jurgens render challenged claims 4,
`
`14, 24, and 34 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................................ 41
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`E. Ground 5: AMIBIOS, Stanley, Jurgens, and Thayer render challenged
`
`claims 5, 15, 25, and 35 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) ................................. 42
`
`F. Ground 6: AMIBIOS and RTTI renders challenged claims 2-8, 12-18, 22-
`
`28, and 32-38 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). ................................................ 44
`
`1. Claims 2, 12, 22, and 32 .............................................................................. 46
`
`2. Claims 3, 13, 23, and 33 .............................................................................. 48
`
`3. Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 24, 25, 34, and 35 ........................................................ 49
`
`4. Claims 6, 16, 26, and 36 .............................................................................. 49
`
`5. Claims 7, 17, 27, and 37 .............................................................................. 50
`
`6. Claims 8, 18, 28, and 38 .............................................................................. 50
`
`G. Ground 7: Pearce renders challenged claims 2, 3, 6-7, 12, 13, 16-17, 22,
`
`23, 26-27, 32, 33, and 36-37 obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .......................... 50
`
`1. Claims 2, 12, 22, and 32 .............................................................................. 50
`
`2. Claims 3, 13, 23, and 33 .............................................................................. 52
`
`3. Claims 6, 16, 26, and 36 .............................................................................. 52
`
`4. Claims 7, 17, 27, and 37 .............................................................................. 53
`
`IX. No Secondary Conditions exist ...................................................................... 54
`
`X.
`
`Fees (37 C.F.R. § 42.103) ............................................................................... 54
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`XI. Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 55
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) ....................................................... 31
`
`In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................. 32
`
`KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., et al., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007) ........... 41
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins., CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 . 13
`
`Statutes
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................. 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................. 53
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 ................................................................................. passim
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 ................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 6,401,202 to Abgrall et al (“202 Patent”)
`
`Ex. 1002
`
`The file history of the 202 Patent
`
`Ex. 1003 American Megatrends AMIBIOS 98 Technical Reference
`
`(“AMIBIOS”)
`
`Ex. 1004 HelpPC 2.10, Quick Reference Utility (“Jurgens”)
`
`Ex. 1005 U S. Patent No. 5,694,582 (“Pearce”)
`
`Ex. 1006 U S. Patent No. 4,099,255 (“Stanley”)
`
`Ex. 1007 U S. Patent No. 5,297,275 (“Thayer”)
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`IBM/370 Principles of Operation
`
`Ex. 1009 Reprogramming the Timer Interrupt (“RTTI”)
`
`Ex. 1010 Declaration of Gabriele Sartori
`
`Ex. 1011 Declaration of Vivek Ganti
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`American Megatrends, Inc., Micro-Star International Co., Ltd, MSI Computer
`
`Corp., Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd., and G.B.T., Inc. (“Petitioners”) petition for
`
`inter partes review seeking cancellation of claims 1-40 of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`(“the 202 Patent,” Ex. 1001), which is assigned to Kinglite Holdings Inc. (“KL”).
`
`KL is referred to as “Patent Owner” in this Petition.
`
`II. Overview
`This Petition furthers the purpose of inter partes review – the cancellation of
`
`unpatentable claims. The challenged claims 1-40 of the 202 Patent never should
`
`have issued. This Petition establishes a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will
`
`prevail regarding at least one of the claims challenged and that the challenged claims
`
`are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103. Thus, Petitioners
`
`respectfully request that the Board grant the Petition and institute trial on all of the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`III. The 202 Patent
`The 202 Patent is titled “Multitasking during BIOS Boot-up.” The 202
`
`Patent issued on June 4, 2002, and appears to claim priority to June 18, 1999. (Ex.
`
`1001, p. 1).
`
`A. Summary of the Technology
`The general field of technology is a Basic Input Output System (BIOS) which
`
`is used by a computer to test and initialize the computer, and then facilitates the
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`loading of an operating system (Ex. Windows, Linus, etc.) onto the computer. (Ex.
`
`1010, p. 9, ¶ 25). As described in the 202 Patent, the BIOS is “built-in software
`
`containing a set of instructions that control systems devices and test memory.” (Ex.
`
`1001, p. 9, 1:14-15).
`
`The subject matter of the 202 Patent is directed to interrupting a normal BIOS
`
`task at scheduled time intervals with requests to display graphics as a computer is
`
`booting. (Ex. 1001, p. 1, Abstract, and p. 14, 12:1-13). The graphics may be an
`
`“animated sequence of banners and/or advertisements.” (Ex. 1001, p. 14, 12:10-13).
`
`By using periodic interrupts to display graphics, the 202 Patent allows for an
`
`“efficient use of BIOS boot-up time to display useful and interesting information on
`
`the screen.” (Ex. 1001, p. 9, 2:35-38).
`
`The 202 Patent purports to achieve “multitasking” in the BIOS. (See Ex.
`
`1001, p. 1 Abstract). “Multitasking” typically means performing two or more tasks
`
`at the same time or almost at the same time. (Ex. 1010, p. 7, ¶ 21). In the context
`
`of the 202 Patent, “multitasking” refers to performing a task between successive
`
`interrupt times of another task. (Ex. 1001, p. 1, Abstract). For example, according
`
`to the 202 Patent’s specification, a first task interrupts a second task to effectuate
`
`“multitasking.” (Ex. 1001, p. 14, 12:1-4). When an interrupt associated with the
`
`first task is complete, then “program control is returned to the normal second task.”
`
`(Id.). Thus, the 202 Patent purports to achieve multitasking by regularly
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`interrupting the normal operations of a boot-up operation (e.g., a second task) to
`
`perform a first task, such as displaying graphics. (Ex. 1010, p. 9, ¶ 26).
`
`B. The claimed embodiments of the 202 Patent
`While the 202 Patent describes a specific application of the concept of
`
`multitasking in terms of displaying graphics in a BIOS via systematically recurring
`
`interrupts, the claims are significantly broader. The three steps of the method of
`
`claim 1 are presented below verbatim:
`
`“enabling interrupt signals at predetermined interrupt times”
`
`“performing a first task in response to the interrupt signals at the
`interrupt times” and
`
`“performing a second task between the successive interrupt times.”
`
`(Ex. 1001, p. 15, 14:36-42). The preamble of the claims describes performing this
`
`purported “multitasking” in a BIOS. Id. However, the independent claims are not
`
`limited to any particular task or task environment.
`
`As described in the 202 Patent, the claimed “second task” may be any
`
`normal task performed by the BIOS. (Ex. 1001, p. 15, 14:20-22 – stating “A
`
`normal BIOS second task is performed between the successive interrupt times”).
`
`The claimed “first task” may be any task that is specified by an interrupt signal.
`
`(Id. at 14:18-21 – stating “A first task is performed in response to the interrupt
`
`signals”). Thus, claim 1 patented the idea of regularly interrupting the normal
`
`BIOS operations to perform a task.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`C. Challenge to the validity of the 202 Patent
`This Petition challenges the validity of claims 1-40 of the 202 Patent. As
`
`described above, the 202 Patent broadly describes interrupting a BIOS operation.
`
`In allowing the 202 Patent, the examiner did not consider certain prior art
`
`references that anticipate the challenged claims or render them obvious. This
`
`Petition identifies five different grounds that demonstrate that the challenged
`
`claims are invalid. In addition, the testimony of Gabriele Sartori, a technical
`
`expert with over thirty years of experience with computing, including BIOS,
`
`demonstrates the strength of the invalidity case. Among other things, Mr. Sartori
`
`testifies that interrupts are fundamental to most computing systems in existence
`
`since the dawn of computing. (Ex. 1010, pp. 8-9, ¶ 24, p. 15, ¶ 47). The prior art
`
`more than aptly shows that Patent Owner should not be permitted to have a patent
`
`purporting to cover fundamental computing concepts including the use of
`
`interrupts, multitasking and BIOS.
`
`IV. Mandatory Notices (42 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(1))
`D. Notice of related matters (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2))
`The 202 Patent is presently asserted against Micro-star International Co., Ltd
`
`(“Micro-Star”) and MSI Computer Corp (collectively, “MSI”) in the District Court
`
`for the Central District of California (CV 14-03009 JVS (PJWx)). The 202 Patent
`
`is also presently asserted against GIGA-BYTE Technology Co., Ltd. (“GIGA-
`
`BYTE”) and G.B.T, Inc. (collectively, “GBT”) in the District Court for the Central
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`District of California (CV 14-04989 JVS (PJWx)). MSI and GBT are both
`
`customers of American Megatrends Inc. (“AMI”). AMI has successfully
`
`intervened in these two district court cases and the two cases have been
`
`consolidated into CV 14-03009 JVS (PJWx). In response to AMI’s intervention,
`
`the Patent Owner asserted the 202 Patent against AMI.
`
`E. Real party-in-interest (42 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1))
`The real parties in interest are:
`
` American Megatrends, Inc. (American corporation, principal place of
`
`business in 5555 Oakbrook Parkway, Norcross, Georgia 30093)
`
` Micro-star International Co., Ltd (Taiwanese corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at No. 69, Lide Street, Zhonghe District,
`
`New Taipei City 235, Taiwan)
`
` MSI Computer Corp (American corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 901 Canada Court, City of Industry, California 91748)
`
` GIGA-BYTE Technology Co., Ltd. (Taiwanese corporation, principal
`
`place of business at No.6, Bao Chiang Road, Hsin-Tien Dist., New
`
`Taipei City 231, Taiwan)
`
` G.B.T, Inc. (American corporation, principal place of business in
`
`17358 Railroad St, City of Industry, CA 91748)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`F. Notice of Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3-4))
`Lead Counsel: Vivek Ganti (Reg. No. 71,368)
`
`Backup Counsel: Gregory Ourada (Reg. No. 55,516)
`
`Address: HILL, KERTSCHER & WHARTON, LLP, 3350 Riverwood
`
`
`
`
`
`Parkway, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA 30339. Tel. 678.384.7443. Fax. 770.953.1358.
`
`
`
`Please address all correspondence to the lead counsel at the address shown
`
`above. Petitioners consent to electronic service of papers by email at: vg@hkw-
`
`law.com and go@hkw-law.com.
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(b), a Power of Attorney by Petitioners
`
`appointing each of the above designated counsel is concurrently filed.
`
`V. Grounds for Standing
`Petitioners certify that the 202 Patent is eligible for inter partes review and
`
`that the Petitioners are not estopped or barred from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims identified in the Petition. The required fee is paid via online
`
`credit card payment. The Office is authorized to charge fee deficiencies and credit
`
`overpayments to Deposit Account No. 506541 (Customer ID No. 87296).
`
`VI. Statement of Relief Requested
`Petitioners request inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-40 of the
`
`202 Patent based on the detailed statements presented in Sections VII and VIII.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`VII. Claim Construction
`A. Applicable Principles of Claim Construction.
`The Board should construe the claims using the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioners propose BRI-based
`
`constructions of terms herein solely for purposes of the inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`proceeding as provided by 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.104(b)(3). The BRI-
`
`based standard is not used in litigation or other proceedings, and on that basis
`
`Petitioners note that these constructions are not necessarily appropriate for use in
`
`litigation or any other proceedings which employ a standard of claim construction
`
`other than BRI.
`
`B. Level of Skill in the Art
`With respect to the 202 Patent, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) is a person holding a Bachelor of Science degree or its equivalent in
`
`electrical engineering or a related technical field such as computer science or
`
`software engineering, having at least one year of experience in computer
`
`programming. (Ex. 1010, p. 5, ¶ 11).
`
`C. Terms to be Construed
`1.
`“Task”
`Under the BRI standard, the term “task” is at least as broad as an activity
`
`that achieves a desired purpose. (Ex. 1010, p. 11, ¶¶ 30-31). A “task” is an
`
`abstract concept that lacks definite boundaries. For example, if a person is using a
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`word processor to edit a document, there may be a word processing task, a spell
`
`check task, an auto-correct task. One task may blur into another task or may
`
`completely encompass a different task.
`
`The 202 Patent’s specification states: “[an] application program is a set of
`
`one or more software programs that performs a task desired by a user.” (Ex. 1001,
`
`p. 12, 7:18-22). The specification provides an example that one or more software
`
`programs may carry out a particular task. The 202 Patent also describes
`
`“hardware-related functions” (Ex. 1001, p. 9, 1:48) and “hardware routines” (id. at
`
`p. 12, 7:59) which demonstrate activities implemented by hardware. This supports
`
`the notion that a task may be an activity that is carried out by hardware as well as
`
`one or more software programs. (Ex. 1010, p. 11, ¶ 31). At the most fundamental
`
`level, a task is an activity that achieves a desire purpose, and this is the BRI
`
`construction of the term “task.” (Id. at p. 11, ¶ 30).
`
`2.
`
`“interrupt controller”
`
`The term “interrupt controller” appears in claims 9, 19, 29, and 39. Under
`
`the BRI standard, this term is at least as broad as a circuit or other device that
`
`generates or handles interrupts. (Id. at pp. 12, ¶¶ 32-33). Outside of the claims,
`
`the term “interrupt controller” does not appear anywhere in the 202 Patent.
`
`However, the term “interrupt generator” appears numerous times throughout the
`
`written description and figures. The claims recite “wherein enabling the interrupt
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`signals comprises: configuring an interrupt controller” (Ex. 1001, p. 15, 14:59-63)
`
`while the written description recites “code that configures the interrupt generator
`
`530” (id., p. 14, 11:26). Based on the context of the 202 Patent, an “interrupt
`
`controller” and an “interrupt generator” are used synonymously to indicate that
`
`something is being enabled to generate interrupts. Therefore, “interrupt controller”
`
`is at least as broad as a circuit or other device that generates or handles
`
`interrupts. (Ex. 1010, pp. 12, ¶¶ 34-35).
`
`All other terms should enjoy their plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`VIII.
`
`Identification of Challenge (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b))
`Petitioners request IPR on the Grounds of Unpatentability indexed below.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(d), copies of the references listed in the index
`
`below are filed with this Petition. As further support for the Grounds of
`
`Unpatentability, Petitioners submit the accompanying declaration of a technical
`
`expert, Gabriele Sartori, which explains how a POSITA would understand the art.
`
`Mr. Sartori has worked in the field of hardware and software design for over
`
`thirty years. (Ex. 1010, p. 4, ¶ 7). In his decades of experience, he has used the
`
`underlying concepts described in the 202 Patent to develop various computing
`
`systems. (Id.). Mr. Sartori is familiar with the use of interrupts as they have
`
`become popularized since the early 1970’s. (Id. at p. 8 ¶ 23). Moreover, Mr.
`
`Sartori explains that the technique of performing multitasking in a BIOS was
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`documented long prior to the time of invention. (Id. at pp. 7-8, ¶¶ 20-21, pp. 27-
`
`28, ¶ 85). For at least these reasons, Mr. Sartori is able to provide reliable
`
`testimony as to what was known and would what have been obvious to a POSITA
`
`at the time of invention.
`
`The grounds upon which this Petition is based rely exclusively upon prior art
`
`which was not reviewed by the Examiner during prosecution of the 202 Patent.
`
`These grounds are summarized as follows:
`
`Ground 1: AMIBIOS anticipates claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-31, 39, and 40
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Ground 2: Pearce anticipates claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-31, 39, and 40
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`
`Ground 3: AMIBIOS and Stanley render obvious claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12, 13,
`
`16-18, 22, 23, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 4: AMIBIOS, RTTI, Stanley, and Jurgens render obvious claims 4,
`
`14, 24, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 5: AMIBIOS, RTTI, Stanley, Jurgens, and Thayer render obvious
`
`claims 5, 15, 25, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 6: AMIBIOS and RTTI render obvious claims 2-8, 12-18, 22-28,
`
`and, 32-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`Ground 7: Pearce renders obvious claims 2, 3, 6-7, 12, 13, 16-17, 22, 23,
`
`26-27, 32, 33, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Ground 1 applies AMIBIOS (Ex. 1003), which is a technical reference for
`
`the AMIBIOS product that was published on May 1, 1998 by Petitioner AMI.
`
`Accordingly, AMIBIOS is a printed publication under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
`
`or 102(b) that predates the priority date of the 202 Patent by over a year.
`
`AMIBIOS invalidates claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-31, 39, and 40.
`
`Ground 2 applies Pearce (Ex. 1005) which is a U.S. patent filed in January
`
`1996 and issued in December 2, 1997 to Pearce. Pearce qualifies as prior art under
`
`at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or 102(b). Pearce also invalidates claims 1, 9-11, 19-
`
`21, 29-31, 39, and 40.
`
`Ground 3 adds Stanley (Ex. 1006) to AMIBIOS to invalidate claims 2, 3, 6-
`
`8, 12, 13, 16-18, 22, 23, 26-28, 32, 33, and 36-38. Stanley is a U.S. patent that was
`
`filed in 1976 and granted 1978 and therefore, qualifies as prior art under at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(a) or 102(b).
`
`Ground 4 addresses claims 4, 14, 24, and 34, which the other grounds do not
`
`address. Ground 4 applies Jurgens (Ex. 1004). Jurgens is titled “Quick Reference
`
`Utility,” authored by David Jurgens in 1991, and qualifies as a printed publication
`
`under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or 102(b). (Ex. 1004).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`Ground 5 address claims 5, 15, 25, and 35, which the other grounds do not
`
`address. Ground 5 applies Thayer (Ex. 1007). Thayer is a U.S. patent that was
`
`filed on December 20, 1991 and granted on March 22, 1994 and therefore,
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or 102(b).
`
`Ground 6 combines AMIBIOS with the Reprogramming the Timer Interrupt
`
`reference (“RTTI”) to challenge claims 2-8, 12-18, 22-28, and, 32-38. RTTI is a
`
`tutorial written by Justin Deltener and was made publically available on the
`
`internet March 9, 1998. (Ex. 1011, p. 3, ¶ 6). RTTI is a printed publication that
`
`qualifies as prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or 102(b), predating the
`
`priority date of the 202 Patent by over a year.
`
`Ground 7 challenges claims 2, 3, 6-7, 12, 13, 16-17, 22, 23, 26-27, 32, 33,
`
`and 36-37 based on obvious variations of Pearce. Ground 7 builds on Ground 2 by
`
`addressing these dependent claims in view of the knowledge of a POSITA at the
`
`time of invention.
`
`Recognizing that the Board is to secure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`resolution of every proceeding” (37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)), Petitioners have narrowly
`
`tailored the discussion of only six references among numerous others which are of
`
`doubtless relevance, in order to avoid straining the Board’s resources. As shown
`
`herein, the interests of justice militate in favor of the institution of IPR on the
`
`limited grounds presented herein.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`Petitioners respectfully submit that denial of any of the asserted grounds of
`
`unpatentability in this Petition on the basis of redundancy, without reaching its
`
`merits, would contravene the statutory mandate of just, speedy and inexpensive
`
`resolution set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). See CBM2012-00003, Paper 7 at 2.
`
`Petitioners respectfully submit that the Board should not adopt an overly restrictive
`
`view of the number of grounds of unpatentability to consider, and should consider
`
`each of the meritorious grounds presented in these limited pages. Considering the
`
`estoppel provisions in the event of an unsuccessful trial on the merits, the interests
`
`of justice and speed are best served by taking up IPR on all grounds presented
`
`herein.
`
`Petitioners now present each ground of unpatentability of the challenged
`
`claims in detail:
`
`A. Ground 1: AMIBIOS anticipates challenged claims 1, 9-11, 19-21, 29-
`31, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`Independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 31 have similar scope, dependent claims
`
`9, 19, 29, and 39 have similar scope, and dependent claims 10, 20, 30, and 40 have
`
`similar scope. The preamble of representative claim 1 states “A method to perform
`
`multitasking in a basic input and output system (BIOS) by a processor.” (Ex.
`
`1001, claim 1).
`
`The AMIBIOS reference involves a BIOS, which it described as “a
`
`collection of routines between the hardware and the systems software,” some of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`these routines include “interrupt service routines.” (Ex. 1003, p. 7). AMIBIOS,
`
`which employs interrupt routines, performs multitasking in a processor: “An
`
`interrupt essentially stops other CPU operations. The number specified with
`
`software interrupts instructs the BIOS to perform an operation using a specific
`
`peripheral device.” (Ex. 1003, p. 87). Below, AMIBIOS depicts various interrupts
`
`(e.g., INT 08h) that are reserved by the BIOS:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, p. 89). Ground 1 generally focuses on the system timer interrupt
`
`labeled as IRQ0, which is tied to the INT 08h interrupt. (Ex. 1003, p. 90).
`
`The body of representative claim 1 includes three steps:
`
`1. Step 1 of representative claim 1
`
`The first of three steps of the method of claim 1 requires “enabling interrupt
`
`signals at predetermined interrupt times.” (Ex. 1001, p.15, 14:36-37). Among the
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`various interrupts AMIBIOS describes (see Ex. 1003, p. 4), the “INT 08h” is an
`
`interrupt that “is called approximately 18.2 times per second.” (Ex. 1003, p. 102).
`
`In other words, the “INT 08h” interrupt is recurring and regularly scheduled at the
`
`predetermined time of 18.2 times per second. (Ex. 1010, pp. 19-20, ¶ 58, p. 29, ¶
`
`93).
`
`Claim 9 further limits the first step of claim 1 by requiring that the method
`
`include “configuring an interrupt controller to generate the interrupt signals.” (Ex.
`
`1001, p. 15, 14:59-63). AMIBIOS uses a standard Intel 8254 Programmable
`
`Interval Timer. (Ex. 1003, p. 49). The programmable interval timer is used to
`
`generate interrupts (INT 08h) at predetermined interval times. (Ex. 1003, p. 102).
`
`Claims 10 also limits this step of claim 1 by requiring the element of “scheduling
`
`an interval timer to generate the interrupt signals.” (Ex. 1001, p. 15, 14:64-67). As
`
`depicted below, AMIBIOS schedules the INT 08h interrupt so that it “ticks 18.2
`
`times per second.”
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`
`(Ex. 1003, p. 102).
`
`2. Step 2 of representative claim 1
`
`The second of three steps of representative claim 1 requires “performing a
`
`first task in response to the interrupt signals at the interrupt times.” (Ex. 1001, p.15,
`
`14:38-39). Every time the INT 08h interrupt is called, the INT 08h interrupt
`
`causes the operation of “increment[ing] the system time count at location 40:6Ch
`
`through 40:6Eh.” (Ex. 1003, p. 102). Incrementing the system time counter
`
`embodies the task of keeping track of date and time. (Ex. 1010, pp. 29-30, ¶¶ 93-
`
`94).
`
`As another example of the “first task” that is performed in response to the
`
`regularly scheduled INT 08h interrupt, AMIBIOS “issues an INT 1Ch Timer Tick
`
`interrupt every time [INT 08h] is called.” (Ex. 1003, p. 102 and figure depicted
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`above). The INT 1Ch Timer Tick is used by a “user-supplied routine” which
`
`exemplifies a first task that is ultimately responsive to the INT 08h signal. (Id.).
`
`In this respect, the first task is understood by a POSITA to be any “user supplied
`
`routine” that is responsive to INT 1Ch (and consequently INT 08h).
`
`(Ex. 1010, pp. 29, ¶ 93). In addition to AMIBIOS, Jurgens provides specific
`
`examples of what these INT 1Ch vectored user-supplied routines may be:
`
`“interrupt vector can be used for TSR popup utilities, animated graphics updates
`
`and event polling.” (Ex. 1006, p. 1).
`
`
`
`As one more example of a “first task,” AMIBIOS performs the task of
`
`determining when to turn off the “floppy drive motor." (Ex. 1003, p. 102). A
`
`POSITA would understand that INT 08h regularly decrements a floppy disk count
`
`as time increases until the counter hits 0 and then the floppy disk motor is cut off.
`
`(Id. at p. 18 describing a “Floppy disk drive motor timeout”). The timer which
`
`implements the first task responds to the periodic INT 08h. (Id.)
`
`3. Step 3 of representative claim 1
`
`The last of the three steps of representative claim 1 requires “performing a
`
`second task between the successive interrupt times.” (Ex. 1001, p. 15, 14:40-41).
`
`As described in the 202 Patent, the second task may be any normal BIOS
`
`operation. (Id. at 11:35-38). AMIBIOS is clear that “[a]fter the interrupt handler
`
`performs its task, computer activities continue at the same point the interrupt
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,202
`
`
`occurred.” (Ex. 1003, p. 89). AMIBIOS’s “computer activity” which is performed
`
`in between interrupts maps to the claimed “second task.” A POSIT
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
