Paper No. __
`Filed: June 24, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`HTC Corporation,
`HTC America, Inc.,
`LG Electronics, Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,777,753
`Case IPR No.: To Be Assigned
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,777,753
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-19 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... - 1 -
`I.
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) ......................... - 2 -
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest ..................................................................... - 2 -
`B.
`Related Matters ................................................................................. - 2 -
`C.
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel .............................................................. - 4 -
`D.
`Service Information .......................................................................... - 5 -
`III.
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................... - 5 -
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................. - 5 -
`V.
`§§ 42.22 AND 42.104(b) ............................................................................ - 5 -
`A.
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ....................................................... - 5 -
`B.
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant ...................................... - 7 -
`VI. THE ’753 PATENT .................................................................................... - 8 -
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................... - 8 -
`A.
`Claim Terms To Be Construed ......................................................... - 9 -
`1.
`“decoder” ............................................................................... - 9 -
`B.
`Expiration of the ’753 Patent ......................................................... - 10 -
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...................................... - 11 -
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE .............................................. - 12 -
`A. Ground A: Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`1-4 and 7-10. ................................................................................... - 12 -
`1.
`Shanley, renders claim 1 obvious......................................... - 12 -
`2.
`Shanley, renders claim 2 obvious......................................... - 23 -
`3.
`Shanley, renders claim 3 obvious......................................... - 25 -
`
`Shanley, renders obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`i
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`B.
`C.
`
`Ground B: Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard,
`Shanley, and Gove, renders obvious, under 35 U.S.C.
`
`4.
`Shanley, renders claim 4 obvious......................................... - 26 -
`5.
`Shanley, renders claim 7 obvious......................................... - 28 -
`6.
`Shanley, renders claim 8 obvious......................................... - 32 -
`7.
`Shanley, renders claim 9 obvious......................................... - 34 -
`8.
`Shanley, renders claim 10 obvious ...................................... - 35 -
`§ 103, claim 12. .............................................................................. - 36 -
`1.
`and Gove, renders claim 12 obvious .................................... - 36 -
`obvious claims 1 and 2. .................................................................. - 38 -
`1.
`1 obvious .............................................................................. - 38 -
`2.
`2 obvious .............................................................................. - 46 -
`D. Ground D: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and
`Stearns, renders obvious claim 3. .................................................. - 47 -
`1.
`renders claim 3 obvious ....................................................... - 47 -
`E.
`Shanley, renders obvious claim 4. .................................................. - 49 -
`1.
`renders claim 4 obvious ....................................................... - 49 -
`F.
`renders obvious claims 7-8. ............................................................ - 50 -
`1.
`renders claim 7 obvious ....................................................... - 50 -
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard, Shanley,
`
`Ground C: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders claim
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders claim
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Stearns,
`
`Ground E: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Shanley,
`
`Ground F: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Whai,
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Whai,
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Whai,
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, Whai, and
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, Whai, and
`
`2.
`renders claim 8 obvious ....................................................... - 54 -
`G. Ground G: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, Whai,
`and Shanley, renders obvious claims 9 and 10. .............................. - 55 -
`1.
`Shanley, renders claim 9 obvious......................................... - 55 -
`2.
`Shanley, renders claim 10 obvious ...................................... - 56 -
`H. Ground H: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, Whai,
`and Gove, renders obvious claim 12. ............................................. - 57 -
`1.
`Gove, renders claim 12 obvious ........................................... - 57 -
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... - 58 -
`
`X.
`
`
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, Whai, and
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Page(s)
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................... 8, 10
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00690-RSP (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 3
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co.,
`Ltd. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00687-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 2
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00691-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Motorola Mobility,
`Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00689-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00930-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00902-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 3
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00225-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................ 3
`
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 10
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al.,
`No. 4:03-cv-00276-LED (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................... 3
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Zletz,
`13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 8
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .............................................................................................. 5, 11, 35
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 57
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 57
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 5
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ........................................................................ 8
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide ............................................................................. 8
`
`v
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753 (“the ’753 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753
`Ex. 1003 U. S. Patent No. 5,546,547 (“Bowes”)
`Ex. 1004
`International Organization for Standardization, “ISO/IEC 11172-2:
`Information technology—Coding of moving pictures and associated
`audio for digital storage media at up to about 1,5 Mbit/s—Part2:
`Video,” (1st ed. Aug. 1, 1993) (“MPEG Standard”)
`Ex. 1005 Reserved
`Ex. 1006 R.J. Gove, “The MVP: A Highly-Integrated Video Compression
`Chip,” Proceedings of the IEEE Data Compression Conference (DCC
`‘94), pp. 215-224 (March 29-31, 1994)
`Ex. 1007 U.S. Patent No. 5,774,676 (“Stearns”)
`Ex. 1008 Declaration of Dr. Santhana Chari (“Chari Decl.”)
`Ex. 1009
`International Organization for Standardization, Website of ISO/IEC
`11172-2
`Ex. 1010 Reserved
`Ex. 1011 Reserved
`Ex. 1012 Reserved
`Ex. 1013 Reserved
`Ex. 1014 Brad Hansen, The Dictionary of Multimedia, 1997
`Ex. 1015 Reserved
`Ex. 1016 Reserved
`Ex. 1017 U. S. Patent No. 5,748,983 (“Gulick 983”)
`Ex. 1018 WO 96/11440, PCT/US95/12933, Shared Memory System (“Whai”)
`Ex. 1019 T. Shanley et al., “PCI System Architecture,” Addison-Wesley Publ’g
`Co. (3rd ed. Feb. 1995) (“Shanley”)
`Ex. 1020 Stone, H., “Microcomputer Interfacing,” Addison-Welsey Publishing
`Co. (1982)
`Ex. 1021 Reserved
`Ex. 1022 Reserved
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,797,028
`Ex. 1024
`“Accelerated Graphics Port Interface Specification,” Intel
`Corporation, July 31, 1996 (Revision 1.0) (“AGP”)
`Ex. 1025 VESA Unified Memory Architecture Hardware Specifications
`Proposal,” Version 1.0p (“VUMA”)
`Ex. 1026 Reserved
`Ex. 1027 Reserved
`Ex. 1028 Reserved
`Ex. 1029 Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Harold Stone
`Ex. 1030 Expert Declaration of Dr. Harold Stone (“Stone Decl.”)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioners1 respectfully request inter partes review of claims 1-4, 7-10, and
`
`12 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753 (“the ’753 patent”)
`
`(Ex. 1001). This Petition shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on the Challenged Claims of the
`
`’753 patent.
`
`The ’753 patent concerns arbitrating access to a memory shared between a
`
`video decoder and another device, such as a processor. See Ex. 1001, Abstract, 5:8-
`
`15. Conventionally, the ’753 patent alleges, a video decoder would have its own
`
`dedicated memory to allow it to operate in real time. See id., 2:43-51, 3:12-19. The
`
`dedicated memory would remain unused most of the time and significantly
`
`increase costs. See id., 2:43-51. To eliminate the problem of a dedicated memory,
`
`the ’753 patent proposes having the video decoder share memory with the
`
`processor. See id., 4:64-5:51. The ’753 patent accomplishes this using an arbiter
`
`circuit, which arbitrates between the video decoder and the processor when one of
`
`them requests access to the shared memory. See id.
`
`
`1 “Petitioners” refers collectively to HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc..
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`But by the ’753 patent’s priority date, others had solved the same problem of
`
`a dedicated memory using the same arbitration scheme. For example, Gulick 983
`
`(Ex. 1017) discloses arbitration logic 107 and arbiter 161, which both arbitrate
`
`between multimedia engine 112 and central processing unit (CPU) 102 when one
`
`of them requests access to shared multimedia memory 160. In addition, Bowes
`
`(Ex. 1006) eliminates the need for dedicated SRAM memory for its digital signal
`
`processor (DSP) 20 by arbitrating between DSP 20 and the computer system when
`
`one of them requests access to its shared main memory subsystem 14. See also
`
`Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. at ¶¶ 1-69 (citing Exhs. 1007, 1023, 1024, 1025).
`
`As such, the ’753 patent describes nothing new. As explained below, the
`
`prior art renders obvious each of the Challenged Claims.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., LG
`
`Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., LG Electronics MobileComm
`
`U.S.A., Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc.
`
`B. Related Matters
`The following would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. district court actions in which Patent Owner asserted the ’368
`
`patent: Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., Ltd. et
`- 2 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`al., No. 2:14-cv-00687-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Parthenon Unified Memory
`
`Architecture LLC v. Motorola Mobility, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00689-JRG-RSP (E.D.
`
`Tex.); Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. HTC Corp. et al., No. 2:14-
`
`cv-00690-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. LG
`
`Elecs., Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00691-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Parthenon Unified
`
`Memory Architecture LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00902-
`
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Qualcomm
`
`Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00930-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Parthenon Unified Memory
`
`Architecture LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 2:15-cv-00225-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.);
`
`and Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00621-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
`
`2.
`
`STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al., No. 4:03-cv-00276-
`
`LED (E.D. Tex.), in which Patent Owner’s predecessor-in-interest asserted U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,812,789, which is related by subject matter to the ’753 patent.
`
`Petitioners have filed, or will file shortly, inter partes review petitions
`
`against four other patents that are part of the same continuation family: U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,321,368; 7,542,045; 8,054,315; and 8,681,164. Because these patents are
`
`substantively similar, Petitioners request, for efficiency and consistency, that the
`
`same panel be assigned to all five petitions.
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this Petition. For Petitioners HTC
`
`Corporation and HTC America, Inc., lead counsel is Joseph A. Micallef (Reg. No.
`
`39,772, jmicallef@sidley.com), and back-up counsel is Cameron Zinsli (Reg. No.
`
`70,028, czinsli@sidley.com). The mailing address for all PTAB correspondence is
`
`Sidley Austin LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 (Telephone:
`
`202-736-8000 / Facsimile: 202-736-8711).
`
`For Petitioner LG Electronics, Inc., lead counsel is Rajeev Gupta (Reg. No.
`
`55,873, LGE_Finnegan_PUMAIPR@finnegan.com), and backup counsel is Darren
`
`M. Jiron (Reg. No. 45,777). The mailing address for all PTAB correspondence is
`
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP, 901
`
`New York Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 (Telephone: 202-408-
`
`4000 / Facsimile: 202-408-4400).
`
`For Petitioners Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., lead counsel is Allan M. Soobert (Reg. No. 36,284, Samsung-
`
`PUMA-IPR@paulhastings.com), and back-up counsel is Naveen Modi (Reg. No.
`
`46,224, Samsung-PUMA-IPR@paulhastings.com). The mailing address for all
`
`PTAB correspondence is Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street NW, Washington, DC
`
`20005 (Telephone: 202-551-1700 / Facsimile: 202-551-1705).
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`D.
`
`Service Information
`
`Counsel for Petitioners consent to service by electronic mail and hand
`
`delivery to the postal mailing addresses of respective lead counsel listed above.
`
`III. PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a)
`The required fees are submitted herewith. The PTO is authorized to charge
`
`any additional fees due at any time during this proceeding to Deposit Account No.
`
`06-0916.
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`Petitioners certify that the ’753 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Each Petitioner
`
`was served a complaint asserting infringement of the ’753 patent no earlier than
`
`June 24, 2014. No Petitioner, real party-in-interest, or privy of a Petitioner was
`
`served before that date. The Petitioners and real parties-in-interest have not
`
`initiated a civil action challenging the validity of the ’753 patent.
`
`V.
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`AND 42.104(b)
`A.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Ground A. Gulick 983 (Ex. 1017), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004) and
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`Shanley (Ex. 1019), renders obvious claims 1-4 and 7-10 (see Section
`
`IX.A)
`
`Ground B. Gulick 983 (Ex. 1017), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004),
`
`Shanley (Ex. 1019), and Gove (Ex. 1006), renders obvious claim 12
`
`(see Section IX.B)
`
`Ground C. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004), renders
`
`obvious claims 1 and 2 (see Section IX.C)
`
`Ground D. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004) and Stearns
`
`(Ex. 1007), renders obvious claim 3 (see Section IX.D)
`
`Ground E. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004) and Shanley
`
`(Ex. 1019), renders obvious claim 4 (see Section IX.E)
`
`Ground F. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004) and Whai
`
`(Ex. 1018), renders obvious claims 7 and 8 (see Section IX.F)
`
`Ground G. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004), Whai
`
`(Ex. 1018), and Shanley (Ex. 1019), renders obvious claims 9 and 10
`
`(see Section IX.G)
`
`Ground H. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004), Whai
`
`(Ex. 1018), and Gove (Ex. 1006), renders obvious claim 12 (see
`
`Section IX.H)
`
`Gulick 983 was filed on June 7, 1995, and thus qualifies as prior art at least
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). MPEG Standard was published in August
`
`1993, and thus qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Ex. 1004 at 1-2; Ex. 1008 at 1-8; Ex. 1009 at 1. Shanley was published in February
`
`1995, and thus qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`Gove was published in 1994, and thus qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Bowes was filed on January 28, 1994, and thus qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Stearns was filed on October 3,
`
`1995, and thus qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Whai was published on April 18, 1996, and thus qualifies as prior art at least under
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`B.
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant
`
`Grounds A-B and Grounds C-H all challenge claims 1-4, 7-10, and 12 of the
`
`’753 patent. However, the grounds are not redundant because of several significant
`
`differences. For example, the primary references applied, Gulick 983 (Ex. 1017)
`
`for Grounds A-B and Bowes (Ex. 1003) for Grounds C-H, address the claimed
`
`“arbiter” and “processor coupled to the main memory” in different ways. Gulick
`
`983 has two arbiters arranged in different configurations than the arbiter in Bowes.
`
`Also Gulick 983 has a chipset 106 that Bowes does not have, which affects the
`
`mapping to the claimed elements. Further, Grounds C-H use secondary references
`
`not used in Grounds A-B to address the elements of the dependent claims.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`Therefore, for at least these reasons, Petitioners respectfully request the Board
`
`adopt all proposed Grounds in this petition, particularly because not adopting one
`
`of the grounds may affect how Petitioners later challenge the validity of the ’753
`
`patent.
`
`VI. THE ’753 PATENT
`The ’753 patent, entitled “Electronic System and Method for Selectively
`
`Allowing Access to a Shared Memory,” issued on August 17, 2010. The ’753
`
`Patent is a continuation of application no. 11/956,165, filed Dec. 13, 2007, which
`
`is a continuation of application no. 10/174,918, filed Jun. 19, 2002, which is a
`
`continuation of application no. 09/539,729, filed Mar. 30, 2000, which is a
`
`continuation of application no. 08/702,910, filed Aug. 26, 1996. The ’753 patent
`
`has 17 claims, including independent claims 1 and 13. Ex. 1030 at ¶ 70-77.
`
`None of the references applied below, except Stearns (which is applied only
`
`as a tertiary reference for one claim), were considered during prosecution of the
`
`’753 patent. See, e.g., Ex. 1001 at 1-5 (References Cited); see generally Ex. 1002.
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`inter partes review,
`In
`the Board applies the broadest reasonable
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) standard to construe claim terms of an unexpired patent.2
`
`Under the BRI standard, claim terms are given their “broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation, consistent with the specification.” In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756,
`
`48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms are “generally given their ordinary and
`
`customary meaning,” which is the meaning that the term would have to a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2007) (quoting Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2005) (en banc)).
`
`A. Claim Terms To Be Construed
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose BRI constructions
`
`for the following terms. All remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`1.
`
` “decoder”
`
`Proposed BRI Construction: “hardware and/or software that translates data
`
`
`2 Because the standards applied in litigation differ from PTO proceedings, any
`
`interpretation of claim terms herein is not binding upon Petitioners in any related
`
`litigation. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Petitioners
`
`reserve their rights to make all arguments in the district court with respect to claim
`
`construction and on other grounds (e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 112).
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`streams into video or audio information”
`
`The term “decoder” appears in claims 7, 8, and 12. The ’753 patent
`
`generally refers to a decoder as a “video and/or audio decompression device.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 1:66-67. According to the specification, “[a]ny conventional decoder
`
`including a decoder complying to the MPEG-1, MPEG-2, H.261, or H.261
`
`standards, or any combination of them, or any other conventional standard can be
`
`used as the decoder/encoder.” Id., 15:27-30 (emphasis added). A conventional
`
`decoder around the time of the alleged invention of the ’753 patent was understood
`
`to include “any hardware or software system that translates data streams into video
`
`or audio information.” Ex. 1014 at 3.
`
`Consistent with
`
`this understanding of a decoder,
`
`the ’753 patent
`
`acknowledges that a decoder can be implemented as hardware or software. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:52-57. For example, the specification explains that video
`
`decoding can be performed by hardware and audio decoding can be performed by
`
`software. See Id., 6:54-7:11. Therefore, consistent with
`
`the ’753 patent
`
`specification and contemporaneous dictionary definitions, the BRI of the term
`
`“decoder” is “hardware and/or software that translates data streams into video or
`
`audio information.”
`
`B.
`
`Expiration of the ’753 Patent
`
`In addition to the BRI analysis above, Petitioners recognize that the ’753
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`patent appears set to expire in August 2016, which will be subsequent to the
`
`requested institution of trial in this proceeding, but may precede a final decision. In
`
`such cases, the Board has held (citing In re Rambus, Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012)), that it will construe patent claims, once expired, according to the
`
`standard applied by the district courts by applying the principles set forth in
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. See, e.g., Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hagenbuch, IPR2013-
`
`00483, Paper No. 37 at 5 (Dec. 5, 2014). Petitioners respectfully submit that this
`
`change in standards would not affect any of the proposed grounds in this Petition,
`
`especially in view of Patent Owner’s interpretations of the claims under the
`
`Phillips standard.
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of
`
`the ’753 patent would have had an accredited Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`
`Engineering and/or Computer Science and/or Computer Engineering and had three
`
`years’ experience in the fields of data compression and overall computer system
`
`architecture. This person would have been capable of understanding and applying
`
`the prior art references described herein. Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶¶ 78-81.
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
`A. Ground A: Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and Shanley, renders
`obvious, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, claims 1-4 and 7-10.
`
`1.
`
`a.
`
`Gulick 983 in view of MPEG Standard and Shanley, renders claim 1
`obvious
`
`1[pre]: “An electronic system comprising:”
`Gulick 983 (see generally Ex. 1030 at ¶ 86) discloses a computer system as
`
`the claimed “electronic system.” See, e.g., Ex. 1017, Abstract, 2:18-20; see also
`
`Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶ 90 (citing Ex. 1023). For example, Gulick 983 discloses
`
`“[a] computer system optimized for real-time applications which provides
`
`increased performance
`
`for
`
`real-time applications over current computer
`
`architectures.” Ex. 1017, Abstract.
`
`b.
`
`1[a]: “a bus;”
`Gulick 983 discloses a memory bus 108. See, e.g., Ex. 1017, 4:10-16; see
`
`also Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶ 91.
`
`c.
`
`1[b]: “a main memory coupled to the bus having stored therein data
`corresponding to video images;”
`
`Gulick 983’s multimedia memory 160 constitutes the claimed “main
`
`memory.” See Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶ 92. Gulick 983 discloses that “multimedia
`
`memory 160 is coupled through an arbiter block 161 to the local bus 108.”
`
`Ex. 1017, 4:26-27. “DMA engine 164 . . . retrieve[s] the video or audio data from
`
`main memory 110 and store[s] the data in the multimedia memory 160.” Id., 6:25-
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`29; see also id., 6:39-43. Thus, multimedia memory 160 is coupled to memory bus
`
`108 having stored therein data corresponding to video images. This multimedia
`
`memory 160 is in fact part of the main memory 110. Id., Fig. 6.
`
`d.
`
`1[c]: “a video circuit coupled to the bus, the video circuit configured to
`receive data from the main memory corresponding to a current video
`image to be decoded and to output decoded video data corresponding to
`the current video image to be displayed on a display device, the current
`video image to be displayed adapted to be stored in the main memory;”
`Gulick 983’s multimedia engine 112 constitutes the claimed “video circuit.”
`
`See Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶ 93-94. Gulick 983 discloses that other components
`
`“couple through the memory bus 108 to the multimedia engine 112.” Ex. 1017,
`
`4:14-16. Thus, multimedia engine 112 is coupled to memory bus 108. “The
`
`multimedia engine 112 performs video and audio processing functions.” Id., 4:16-
`
`18. “In the preferred embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the multimedia engine 112
`
`includes one DSP engine 210 which preferably performs video and audio
`
`processing functions.” Id., 5:15-18. “[T]he one or more DSP engines 210 in the
`
`multimedia engine 112 read the commands and data from the multimedia memory
`
`160 and perform the necessary graphics and audio processing 40 functions to
`
`generate the appropriate video and audio signals to the video and audio ports 172
`
`and 174.” Id., 7:37-42.
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Gulick 983, FIG. 1)
`
`(Gulick 983, FIG. 2)
`
`Gulick 983’s “multimedia engine 112 preferably includes a video port 172
`
`for coupling to a video monitor 114.” Id., 4:18-20. “In the preferred embodiment,
`
`the multimedia engine 112 includes video processing circuitry and/or firmware,
`
`including a random access memory digital to analog converter (RAMDAC), for
`
`converting video data into appropriate analog signals, preferably red, green and
`
`blue (RGB) signals, for output directly to video monitor 114.” Id., 5:50-55. Gulick
`
`983 contemplates that the multimedia engine “performs real-time operations,
`
`including audio and video functions, as well as others.” Ex. 1017, Abstract.
`
`Gulick 983 does not explicitly disclose that its multimedia engine 112 is
`
`configured to receive data from the main memory corresponding to a current video
`
`image to be decoded and to output decoded video data corresponding to the current
`
`video image to be displayed on a display device, the current video image to be
`
`displayed adapted to be stored in the main memory. However, one of ordinary skill
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`in the art would have been