trials@uspto.gov
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`IPR2015-01500, Paper No. 53
`IPR2015-01501, Paper No. 52
`IPR2015-01502, Paper No. 51
`October 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BYRON ROGERS FEDERAL BUILDING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`HTC CORPORATION, and
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`
`
`Oral Hearing Held: September 19, 2016
`
`Before: JAMES B. ARPIN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS (via
`videoconference) and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL (via videoconference),
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`September 19, 2016, at the Byron Rogers Federal Building, 1961 Stout
`Street, 14th Floor, Denver, Colorado at 10:59 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`IPR2015-01500, Paper No. 53
`IPR2015-01501, Paper No. 52
`IPR2015-01502, Paper No. 51
`October 11, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BYRON ROGERS FEDERAL BUILDING
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`HTC CORPORATION, and
`HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY ARCHITECTURE LLC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`
`-------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`
`
`Oral Hearing Held: September 19, 2016
`
`Before: JAMES B. ARPIN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS (via
`videoconference) and SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL (via videoconference),
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`The above entitled matter came on for hearing on Monday,
`September 19, 2016, at the Byron Rogers Federal Building, 1961 Stout
`Street, 14th Floor, Denver, Colorado at 10:59 a.m.
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
`
`HTC CORPORATION, and HTC AMERICA, INC.:
` JOSEPH MICALLEF, ESQ.
` Sidley Austin LLP
` 1501 K Street, N.W.
` Washington, DC 20005
` (202)736-8492
`
`
`
`ON BEHALF OF PATENT OWNER:
`
` PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORYARCHITECTURE LLC.
` GREGORY J. GONSALVES, ESQ.
` Gonsalves Law Firm
` Falls Church, Virginia
` (571)419-7252
` (Appeared via telephone)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`P R O C E E D I N G S
`
`(10:59 a.m.)
`JUDGE ARPIN: Well, good morning to
`everybody here in Denver, to the judge participating from
`San Jose, and good afternoon to Judge Mitchell and to
`Patent Owner's counsel appearing on the East Coast.
`This is a hearing for HTC Corp and HTC
`America, Inc. vs. Parthenon Unified Memory
`Architecture, Inc. It's three separate cases we're going to
`hear today.
`
`MS. SANCHEZ: The telephonic caller is not
`yet connected.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Oh, okay. Well, then we'll
`pause for a moment and wait for the telephonic caller to
`get connected.
`MS. SANCHEZ: Okay.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Do we have everybody
`attached now?
`MS. SANCHEZ: He was given instructions.
`JUDGE ARPIN: We'll give them another
`minute or two.
`(Discussion off the record.)
`JUDGE ARPIN: We seem to be having some
`technical difficulties. I'm going to adjourn for five
`minutes, and we'll start again at 10 past. Thank you very
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`much. I'm sorry for the inconvenience and hopefully
`when we try this again, it will work flawlessly. Thank
`you.
`
`(Off the record from 11:06 a.m. until 11:14
`
`a.m.)
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Please be seated.
`All right. We will try to begin this again. I
`have to apologize to the parties here and to the Patent
`Owner on the line, that the problem was a transposed
`number on our end, not a problem with P atent Owner
`trying to get through. So we will begin again.
`Today's hearing is for three separate cases
`between HTC Corp and HTC America, Inc. and -- vs.
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, Inc. The case
`numbers are IPR2015- 01500, 2015- 01501 and 2015-
`01502.
`
`I'd like to take a moment to introduce the
`judges. The Patent Owner can't see our monitor here in
`the courtroom, but on our left, we have Judge Clements,
`who is joining us remotely from San Jose, and we -- on
`our right, we have Judge Mitchell, who is joining us
`remotely from Alexandria. I'm Judge Arpin, and I
`welcome those people, who have come to Denver, to
`Denver, and we have a representative from the P atent
`Owner, I understand, Mr. Gupta. Is that correct?
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`MR. ANJOM: It's Mr. Anjom. A- N- --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Mr. Anjom --
`MR. ANJOM: -- -J-O-M.
`JUDGE ARPIN: -- I'm sorry.
`MR. ANJOM: It's fine.
`JUDGE ARPIN: And I would like to begin
`by asking Petitioner to step to the podium and make their
`appearances.
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you.
`Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Joe
`Micallef with Sidley Austin for the HTC Petitioners. If I
`may introduce some of my colleagues that are with me:
`Mr. Dillon, from Sidley is here. He's going to operate my
`slide show. My colleague, Mr. Holbreich, is in
`attendance listening, and my client, Mr. Wiggins, is also
`in the back.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Welcome, gentlemen. It's a
`pleasure to have you here in Denver. Petitioner , you may
`return to your counsel's table --
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you.
`JUDGE ARPIN: -- Counselor.
`Patent Owner, if you would make your
`appearances, please.
`DR. GONSALVES: My name is Dr. Gregory
`Gonsalves. I'll be presenting on behalf of the Patent
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`Owner, Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC,
`today.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Dr. Gonsalves,
`do you hear us clearly from your location?
`DR. GONSALVES: Yeah, I can hear you
`
`fine.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Is there anyone in
`attendance with you at this time?
`DR. GONSALVES: No. I'm here in my
`office alone.
`JUDGE ARPIN: All right. Thank you very
`
`much.
`
`I'm going to make a couple of introductory
`remarks, some guidelines and rules of the road, as it were,
`for how we're going to conduct today's hearings.
`First of all, I informed the parties in the
`order for the hearing that the counsel would be allowed to
`use their computers from the counsel tables, but they
`would not be allowed to connect to the Internet.
`Mr. -- Dr. Gonsalves, that applies to you as
`well. Even though you are not in our hearing room, as I
`indicated in the email granting authorization for you to
`appear by phone, you are bound by all of our instructions
`and by all of the orders. So although you are not present
`in the hearing room, you also may not use the Internet in
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`your -- during the course of your presentation. Is that
`understood, sir?
`DR. GONSALVES: Yes, Your Honor. I'll
`comply with your instructions.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much.
`Because we have a participant by phone, I
`think that it is crucially important that we all try to
`remain as quiet as possible in the hearing room, so that
`Dr. Gonsalves can hear what is said and also so that we
`can hear what he says. I've asked him to ensure that he
`has a secure landline and a quiet location from which to
`make his presentations. I'm sure that he has and will
`comply with those instructions.
`In that regard, I would remind everyone in
`the hearing room that they should have silenced their cell
`phones; and to Dr. Gonsalves, I hope that he has not only
`silenced his cell phone, but that he will not be getting any
`other calls during the course of this hearing.
`DR. GONSALVES: My cell phone is
`nowhere near me.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much.
`DR. GONSALVES: It is turned off.
`JUDGE ARPIN: With regard to the hearing,
`also, there cannot be any recordings or retransmissions of
`this hearing. The sole transcript of this hearing is being
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`created by our court reporter here in Denver, which is,
`again, why it is so important that we keep quiet and that
`the parties speak clearly.
`In that regard, when Petitioner is speaking,
`they must remain at the lectern. Because of limitations
`on our microphone system and because we have judges
`from two remote locations, if you stray from the lectern,
`the judges may not hear your arguments, and I'm sure you
`do not want that to happen.
`MR. MICALLEF: I understand, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you.
`With regard to interruptions, I do not permit
`interruptions while another party is speaking, so there
`will be no spoken objections to another party's arguments.
`If either party has an objection, they may wait until it is
`their turn to speak again and then state the objection for
`the record. I do not require and I do not believe my
`fellow judges require an explanation of any objection.
`We will take all objections under advisement. We will
`consider them later.
`For the party who is last speaking, in other
`words, the party who doesn't get a chance to speak again,
`if you have an objection that you would like to state after
`you no longer have any turn to speak, please inform the
`Board.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`Now, Petitioner can do that easily because
`Petitioner's counsel is present here. Patent Owner, Dr.
`Gonsalves, you will have to make yourself heard if you
`wish to state an objection after your last opportunity to
`speak.
`
`Is that understood?
`DR. GONSALVES: I understand, Your
`
`Honor.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much.
`Because we have three cases here today, it is
`crucially important that if you are referring to an exhibit
`or a paper that appears in one of the cases, that you
`identify the case that you're speaking to. We have not
`only your demonstratives, but also the records of these
`cases available to us on our computer screens, so if you
`are talking about, for example, an exhibit that only
`appears -- or appears in the 01500 case, please identify it
`as such.
`
`That will help the court reporter keep an
`accurate record. It will help all of the judges follow
`along with your arguments and also your opposing
`counsel to follow along with your arguments.
`With that, we have no motions to exclude or
`motions to amend in these cases. We do have a motion
`for observations presented by the Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`Petitioner bears the burden of persuasion or proof in all
`of these cases, so Petitioner will speak first.
`Petitioner may reserve time for rebuttal to
`the arguments presented by the Patent Owner. Patent
`Owner will then follow the Petitioner, and the Patent
`Owner may present its case and any arguments it wishes
`to present on its motions for observations.
`If Patent Owner presents arguments on its
`motions for observation, then Petitioner may respond to
`those arguments during its rebuttal time. If, however,
`Patent Owner does not present arguments on its motions
`for observations , then Petitioner may not address those
`motions. If Patent Owner does present arguments on the
`motions for observations and Petitioner responds to those,
`Patent Owner may reserve time to respond to those
`arguments. If, however, Petitioner -- or Patent Owner
`reserves time but does not present or Petitioner does not
`respond, then that time is lost.
`So be careful in what time you decide to
`reserve. Each party will have 60 minutes to present their
`entire case for all three cases. Petitioner will begin. I
`will keep time and will ask the Petitioner how much time
`he wishes to reserve when it reaches the podium.
`Are there any questions from either counsel
`regarding these instructions? Petitioner?
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`MR. MICALLEF: No, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Patent Owner?
`DR. GONSALVES: No, Your Honor. Thank
`
`you.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: All right. With that, if
`Petitioner would like to step to the podium, I will set my
`timer and I will inform you of the time.
`Petitioner, how much time would you like to
`
`reserve?
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Your Honor, I would like
`to reserve at least 15 minutes. And I say that because I
`may actually choose to sit down before the 45 minutes is
`done.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: All right. I will inform you
`-- I will try to inform you five minutes before the 15
`minutes and otherwise, you may begin when ready.
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you very much,
`Your Honor.
`Good morning, again, Your Honors, Joe
`Micallef for the Petitioners. I have -- we have submitted,
`last Monday, our slides, our demonstratives, 70 of them.
`I can -- I want to tell you right off the bat that I do not
`intend to go through all of them.
`I put them in because I think that everything
`on there may have some importance to the Board's
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`decision- making process, and I put some in in case the
`Board has questions that might be better answered by
`reference to those portions of the record. I will --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Petitioner, before you go on
`
`--
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Yes, sir.
`JUDGE ARPIN: -- I omitted something when
`I was speaking before. Please, when you do talk about
`your slides, please identify the slide number clearly for
`the record and for my fellow judges.
`MR. MICALLEF: I will, indeed. I intend to
`walk through a number of them, and I will certainly
`indicate what slide I'm talking about.
`I'd like to start, though, with the suggestion
`that this case -- in this case, there are two overarching
`themes that the record has already shown. The first one
`is, is that the Patent Owner here does not address the
`grounds that were instituted for trial. Instead, in almost
`every case, the Patent Owner sets up straw men,
`arguments about technology or chips or references that
`either don't even exist or were not part of the grounds
`described in the P etition or the grounds that -- on which
`this trial was instituted. And I'm going to show you that
`in a number of instances.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`Secondly, it's quite clear that the Patent
`Owner's expert, the testimony of the Patent Owner's
`expert has utterly collapsed. We put a number of things
`in our R eply Brief, and I'm going to show you in detail.
`He has made substantial errors. He has demonstrated that
`he does not understand the technology at issue here, and I
`would submit to you that when you see that, that that kind
`of expert testimony is not reliable and is not credible and
`I don't think can support fact- finding of the Board.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Petitioner, before you go
`on, I did omit another thing --
`MR. MICALLEF: Uh- huh.
`JUDGE ARPIN: -- when I was doing my
`presentation. You'll excuse me, this is a little bit of a
`complicated set of cases.
`Patent Owner filed certain exhibits that had
`inadvertently been omitted from filing with the Board on
`Friday. I assume that those exhibits were served on the
`Petitioner with the Patent Owner's R esponse; am I correct
`in that assumption?
`MR. MICALLEF: Likely. We were certainly
`served a number of things. I -- I had -- and we are
`checking to make sure exactly what was filed is exactly
`what was served, but I don't have a final answer on that.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`I've been on an airplane and -- but I can get the Board a
`final answer.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Well, for now, we will
`assume that they have been served and that the only
`omission was in, perhaps, a filing difficulty with the
`Board, but I will ask Patent Owner about that when it is
`his turn to speak.
`Please proceed. I'm sorry to interrupt.
`MR. MICALLEF: That's okay. Thank you
`
`very much.
`
`Now, if we could just move to Slide 3.
`So this is just a roadmap slide, and it puts
`out the points that I'm going to walk down and touch on.
`Again, I'm not going to touch on every slide, and I'm not
`going to touch on every point that we have made in our
`papers because I don't think we have time to do that.
`Obviously, we stand behind all of our
`arguments, and we think they're persuasive and they're
`right, and I'm willing to answer questions about them. But
`I'm going to just sort of walk down this roadmap in my
`presentation and -- and deal with various different points.
`So let's -- so the first part of the roadmap, of
`course, is an overview of the patents and prior art. I'm
`sure Your Honors have read them. I don't intend to spend
`a lot of time. I just want to highlight a couple of things.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`And if I could have you change to Slide No.
`
`5.
`
`So Slide No. 5 is a background portion of the
`'368 Patent, which is one of the three patents at issue
`here. I suppose I should say, the three patents are all
`continuations of each other. They have the same
`specification. They're all, as you said, owned by
`Parthenon, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Acacia
`Technologies, and so what I'm pointing to here actually
`exists in all of them.
`And I highlighted this first portion because I
`think it goes to exactly what the inventors of this patent
`are telling the world they think they invented, and that is
`-- this passage says the present invention relates to, or
`more specifically, directed to sharing a memory interface
`between this device that does decompression and
`compression and what it calls another device in the
`system.
`
`And if you read further in the patent, you
`realize that the principal examples the inventors talk
`about are a video decoder of some type and a CPU, which
`share a bus and an interface into a main memory of the
`system.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, with regard to
`the video decoder, now, we have -- in our various
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`decisions, we had claim constructions for decoder and
`video decoder, which we adopted in the DIs. I do not
`believe that the Patent Owner filed arguments against our
`claim constructions.
`Do you agree with the constructions that we
`presented in the DIs for 1500, 1501 and 1502?
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, Your Honor, I think
`you adopted the ones we proposed in the P etition, so yes.
`Although in -- I think it's 1501, I'm not so sure there was
`an interpretation for video circuit. I don't think there was
`one, but for the other two, yes. We agree, and I think
`you're right: It's not disputed at this point by Patent
`Owner.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: Okay. As far as the video
`circuit, then, you don't dispute the construction we made
`there, as well?
`MR. MICALLEF: No, we don't.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Thank you very much.
`Please proceed.
`MR. MICALLEF: Okay.
`And I want to point out, on this Slide No. 5,
`this other passage from the background portion of the
`patents here, that refers to this prior art, commercially
`available decoder, this S -- from STMicroelectronics,
`these -- this 3520 part.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`So -- and the reason I point to it is because
`it's clear from this that the inventors here are not
`suggesting that they came up with the idea that one could
`use a decoder to decode MPEG data streams, because they
`point to an STMicroelectronics part that one can just go
`out and buy.
`Can we move to Slide 6, please.
`Now, on this slide, there's -- these are more
`passages from the patents at issue, and I'd like to focus
`first on the middle one. Now, you know, as I mentioned,
`that these inventors say that their invention is sharing a
`memory interface that --
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, though, isn't the
`STi3520, isn't that the AT&T chip?
`MR. MICALLEF: It is not, Your Honor.
`JUDGE ARPIN: It is not? This is a different
`
`chip?
`
`please.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: This is a different chip.
`JUDGE ARPIN: I'm sorry. Go ahead,
`
`MR. MICALLEF: My point here is, for two
`processing devices or processing elements to share a bus
`and an interface in the memory, obviously, there has to be
`some kind of priority scheme or arbitration scheme to
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`determine who gets to access the memory when, in order
`to avoid collisions.
`And what's interesting here is the patents say
`the priority scheme can be any priority scheme. So
`they're not -- again, they're not saying that they invented
`some novel priority scheme. It's any one that you can
`use. And it's the same with the next passage I have at the
`bottom of this slide: Any conventional decoder can be
`used.
`
`So once again, they are not saying, Well, we
`invented a really great, novel chip or decoder. That's not
`what they're even claiming to have invented. But what's
`really fascinating about this slide is the arguments you're
`going to hear, the things that are in dispute in these
`proceedings all revolve around the priority scheme and
`the decoder, the things the inventors almost explicitly
`say, We didn't invent, when they say, You can just use
`any of the ones that are known.
`If I could have you turn to Slide 9.
`Now, Slide 9 is a passage from the
`background portion of the Bowes Patent. As I'm sure you
`know, Bowes -- the Bowes Patent is the prior art patent to
`Apple. It is the primary reference for all the grounds.
`All the grounds are the -- rest on the combination of
`Bowes and MPEG-1, a couple of them combined, a few
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`other prior art references that aren't really, I think, at
`issue in any of the arguments that have been raised.
`The passages on Slide 9 is really Bowes
`explaining or setting up his explanation of what his
`invention is. He's -- and on Figure 1 -- this passage is all
`about Figure 1, which I have there on the left -- it's a
`prior art computer system, and you can see it has a CPU
`and a memory and a memory bus, and it also has this
`thing, DSP 20.
`And what's interesting about the prior art
`system is that DSP 20 has its own SRAM over there, its
`own local memory, cache memory, if you will, whatever
`you want to call it.
`And Bowes makes the point in his
`background that that SRAM is expensive, and it would be
`a really good thing to get rid of it and, instead, let that
`DSP use the main memory, DRAM memory, which is
`much less expensive and is anyway in the system for
`various reasons.
`And he says there at the bottom, "It is
`therefore one object of the present invention to provide a
`computer architecture that incorporates DSP technology
`for real time data processing without requiring the
`inclusion of expensive SRAM to support the DSP."
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`So that's the point of his invention. And how
`does he do it? Well, you can see at the top of this same
`Slide 9, he says that his DSP 20 may be an off-the-shelf
`DSP. And he gives an example of this AT&T chip, and
`we're going to get to that, but he says it's an off -the-shelf
`DSP.
`
`Can we go to the next slide, Slide 10, please.
`Now, Slide 10, you'll see I have Figure 2
`over there to the left, and this is an example of Bowes'
`invention, and you can see he has the same DSP: DSP 20.
`And he says that in the preferred embodiment, it is that
`AT&T chip, but it's not just the AT&T chip; it's DSP 20,
`which is an off-the-shelf DSP.
`But what's interesting about Bowes is he --
`he doesn't say, I made a fancy decoder or I made a fancy
`DSP. His invention is in the arbitration scheme, the
`priority scheme.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Counselor, could you go
`back to your Slide 9 for a second, please?
`MR. MICALLEF: Of course.
`JUDGE ARPIN: In that first line, where it
`says a DSP 20 may be an off-the-shelf DSP such as the
`AT&T chip, how should we read the words "such as"?
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, that's what I was
`getting to. There is nothing about that AT&T chip that
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`Bowes ever says is important or critical or even
`particularly relevant to his invention. It -- the DSP is not
`his invention. The DSP -- I mean, his invention is the
`arbitration scheme that he has encased in an entirely
`different chip. It's an ASIC that's on Figure 2, called the
`MCA.
`
`So the only way to read that, is that this is
`just one example of an off-the-shelf DSP. It might be a
`different case if he had said, my invention depends on a
`particular characteristic of that AT&T chip; maybe you
`could construe this phrase a little differently.
`But that's not in Bowes, so I don't think you
`can fairly construe this sentence as saying anything but:
`DSP 20 can be off-the-shelf and oh, by the way, here's an
`example.
`
`JUDGE ARPIN: What about the SRAM,
`though? I mean, are we going to read this and the line on
`Slide 9 where you say, "SRAMs are significantly more
`expensive than DRAM" -- or when Bowes says that -- as
`saying DSP 20 may be an off-the-shelf DSP, such as the
`AT&T chip, but not with an SRAM; is that how you're
`suggesting we read that?
`MR. MICALLEF: Well, I think the SRAM is
`-- I'm a little confused by your question. I think the
`SRAM in that Figure 1 is different from the DSP. Those
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`are two different devices. Now, that DSP -- that
`particular one he gives an example of, the AT&T part, has
`an internal memory that's separate and apart from this
`SRAM 24.
`
`But I don't -- I don't think you can read any
`exclusion into what he's saying. I think he's just saying,
`you can use an off-the-shelf DSP with my arbitration
`scheme. That's his point.
`JUDGE ARPIN: Please continue. Thank
`
`you.
`
`12.
`
`MR. MICALLEF: Thank you.
`Okay. If we could just jump quickly to Slide
`
`And this is just a quick overview of the
`MPEG-1 standard. I don't want to spend a lot of time on
`it; I'm sure Your Honors have heard of it and know
`something about it. The -- I want to make just a couple
`points and that is, it is obviously a standard for encoding
`and decoding images. Video, of course, is a sequence of
`images. They're called pictures in the parlance of this
`particular standard. And they come in three flavors: I-
`Pictures, P-Pictures, and B-Pictures.
`And the P -Pictures and B-Pictures, which are
`pictures that are encoded using motion- compensated
`prediction from other pictures in the sequence, must be
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`decoded using other pictures in the sequence. And so
`that's the only way to comply with the MPEG- 1 standard:
`You must be able to obtain previously decoded pictures
`and use it for a subsequent decoding process.
`And if you go to the next slide, Slide 13, it
`becomes very clear, even from the MPEG-1 standard --
`this is Figure 4 from the standard -- that you're going to
`have to store previously decoded pictures, images so that
`they are available -- as well as other information, like
`motion vectors -- so that they are available for subsequent
`decoding processes.
`Okay. So let me move on to Slide 14. And
`again, this is just the Roadmap slide. I want to go to this
`-- this issue about -- of whether the Bowes/MPEG
`combination satisfies the decoder and video decoder, or
`video circuit elements of the claim. And I'll point out
`that I don't think Patent Owner has made any distinction
`between those claim -- different claim elements, slightly
`different claim elements. There's probably a reason for
`that. I don't think there's many distinctions to be made.
`We haven't, either, so I think they sort of go together.
`On Slide 17, I actually have a --
`Slide 17, please.
`-- the Board's interpretations of decoder and
`video decoder.
`
`
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`Decoder was just interpreted to mean
`"hardware and/or software that translates data streams
`into video or audio information." The interpretation of
`video decoder is very similar, there was just "video
`information."
`These are very -- my point here is: These are
`very broad interpretations. Hardware and/or software that
`translates data streams into this kind of information.
`That's all that's required. So what is the argument of the
`Patent Owner on this?
`We can go to, I guess, Slide 18.
`Their main argument with respect to the
`decoder elements and video circuit elements is, they say -
`- and they sort of pose it in two different ways. One is
`that Bowes does not state that his DSP is suitable for
`video compression, video decompression, and the other
`one is that the person of ordinary skill in the art would
`recognize that his DSP is not suitable for video
`compression and decompression.
`First and foremost, however, I think I need to
`point out that all of their analysis is based on the AT&T
`3210 chip. That is what they are saying is not suitable
`and that he doesn't say is suitable.
`If I can have you go to Slide 19, please.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`
`
`24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`
`Case IPR2015-01500 (Patent 7,321,368 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01501 (Patent 7,777,753 B2)
`Case IPR2015-01502 (Patent 7,542,045 B2)
`And this is the first and probably principal
`point, where they are simply ignoring the ground. On
`Slide 19, this was the analysis from our petition, from one
`of our petitions, but the other ones are -- are the same.
`We cited to DSP 20. I don't think we ever cited the
`AT&T chip or expressly mentioned it. We cited to DSP 20
`as the structure in the Bowes Patent that satisfied the
`video decoder, the decoder and the video circuit elements.
`And, in fact, that --
`If you can move to Slide 21.
`-- that was recognized by the Board in the
`Institution Decision.
`In response to an argument the Patent Owner
`
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
