Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 10
` Filed: June 2, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00094
`Patent 5,894,441
`_____________
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Micron Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 9, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,894,441 (Ex. 1001, “the ’441 patent”) (Paper 8,
`“Dec.”). Petitioner requests reconsideration of the denial of institution and
`contends that we misapprehended and overlooked teachings of McAdams
`
`
`571.272.7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 10
` Filed: June 2, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00094
`Patent 5,894,441
`_____________
`
`
`
`Before BART A. GERSTENBLITH, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
`ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Micron Technology, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Request for Rehearing
`(Paper 9, “Req. Reh’g”) of the Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes
`Review of U.S. Patent No. 5,894,441 (Ex. 1001, “the ’441 patent”) (Paper 8,
`“Dec.”). Petitioner requests reconsideration of the denial of institution and
`contends that we misapprehended and overlooked teachings of McAdams
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00094
`Patent 5,894,441
`
`and Minami, as well as the specific rationale for combining these teachings.
`Req. Reh’g 1.
`
`II.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[w]hen rehearing a decision on petition,
`a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.” An abuse of
`discretion occurs when a “decision was based on an erroneous conclusion of
`law or clearly erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.”
`PPG Indus., Inc. v. Celanese Polymer Specialties Co., 840 F.2d 1565, 1567
`(Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). The request must identify, specifically,
`all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and
`the place where each matter was addressed previously in a motion,
`opposition, or reply. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`In our Decision Denying Institution, we determined that Petitioner had
`not shown sufficiently that the combination of McAdams and Minami
`teaches “a column redundancy decoder activating said redundant column
`selection line in response to said first column address when said second
`word line is activated” (“the column redundancy decoder limitation”), as
`recited in claim 6. Dec. 13. We further determined that Petitioner did not
`provide sufficiently an articulated reasoning with some rational
`underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 16.
`In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner contends that we overlooked
`or misapprehended “the complete teachings of and contentions regarding
`McAdams” and “instead incorrectly relied on passages from McAdams
`‘alone’ and ‘by itself.’” Req. Reh’g 1. The Petition presented certain
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00094
`Patent 5,894,441
`
`contentions regarding what McAdams discloses. Pet. 42–44. In our
`Decision Denying Institution, we explained why we were not persuaded by
`those contentions. Dec. 9–11. Petitioner acknowledged deficiency in the
`disclosure of McAdams, contending “[w]hat McAdams does not explicitly
`disclose is whether activating the column redundancy decoder occurs when a
`word line is activated.” Pet. 44. With respect to the column redundancy
`decoder limitation, however, the Petition did not provide a specific proposed
`modification of the teachings of McAdams alone or in combination with
`Minami. Instead, the Petition purported to remedy this deficiency by
`referencing back to a different claim limitation. Id. In the Decision, we
`explained why the contentions referencing back to the other limitation are
`deficient. Dec. 11.
`In addition, in its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner purports to
`identify specific contentions that we misapprehended and overlooked. Req.
`Reh’g at 4–14. For example, Petitioner contends:
`[T]he Board overlooked passages in the Petition that explain how
`McAdams’ redundant decoder is programmable with any
`address, including the first column address and second word line
`address. Immediately preceding this contention, the Petition
`describes how the programmed “column and row address” of
`McAdams would have been understood in this context:
`“Specifically, [clause 1] while the first column address and first
`word line activates the normal selection line, [clause 2] the same
`first column address and second word line activates the
`redundant column selection line.” Pet. 42.
`Req. Reh’g 7.
`Below is the description in the Petition that Petitioner asserts was
`overlooked.
`
`10.2.7. [6.6] “a column redundancy decoder
`activating
`said
`redundant
`column
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00094
`Patent 5,894,441
`
`
`selection line in response to said first
`column address when said second word
`line is activated.”
`
`
`This limitation simply covers the concept of using a
`redundant bit line to replace only part of a column (a segment).
`Specifically, while the first column address and first word line
`activates the normal selection line, the same first column address
`and second word line activates the redundant column selection
`line. MICRON-1003, Baker Decl., Appx. A at claim [6.6].
`Pet. 42. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion, the immediately preceding
`description in the Petition pertains to the challenged claim, not McAdams.
`Furthermore, Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing does not identify specific
`contentions in the Petition pertaining to how McAdams’ redundant decoder
`is programmable with any address that we overlooked or misapprehended.
`Upon review of the Request for Rehearing, we are not persuaded by
`Petitioner that we misapprehended or overlooked contentions in the Petition
`that were provided with sufficient specificity with respect to the column
`redundancy decoder limitation. In our Decision Denying Institution, we
`explained that a deficiency with the Petition and supporting Declaration is
`excessive referencing back to contentions regarding other claim limitations
`without specifying sufficiently which of the other contentions relate to the
`column redundancy decoder limitation and how they relate. Dec. 11–13.
`We cannot have overlooked or misapprehended contentions that were not
`specified sufficiently in the Petition as relating to the column redundancy
`decoder limitation.
`Petitioner contends that we did not consider the rationale for
`combining McAdams and Minami for claim 6 provided in the Petition. Req.
`Reh’g 13. We considered Petitioner’s contentions regarding reasons to
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00094
`Patent 5,894,441
`
`combine presented prior to the element-by-element analysis (Pet. 26–29),
`and other contentions relating to claim 6 (id. at 32–44), to the extent that the
`contentions were provided with sufficient specificity. Dec. 13–16.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that our Decision Denying
`Institution was not “based on an erroneous conclusion of law or clearly
`erroneous factual findings, or . . . a clear error of judgment.” PPG Indus.,
`Inc., 840 F.2d at 1567 (citations omitted).
`
`IV. ORDER
`For the foregoing reasons, it is:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (Paper 9) is
`denied.
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jeremy Jason Lang
`Justin Constant
`WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
`jason.lang@weil.com
`justin.constant@weil.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Nicholas T. Peters
`Paul Henkelmann
`FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY LLP
`limestoneipr@fitcheven.com
`
`
`
`5
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
