Paper No. __
`Filed: February 26, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________________________________________
`
`ZTE USA, Inc.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC
`Patent Owner
`___________________________________________
`
`INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,812,789
`Case IPR No. IPR2016-00664
`___________________________________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,812,789
`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. 5,812,789
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 3 
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II.  MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .............................. 3 
`
`III. 
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 6 
`
`IV.  GROUNDS FOR STANDING ........................................................................ 6 
`
`V. 
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`AND 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 6 
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant ........................................... 8 
`
`VI.  THE ’789 PATENT ......................................................................................... 8 
`
`VII.  CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 9 
`
`A. 
`
`Claim Terms to Be Construed ............................................................. 10 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`“video decoder” ......................................................................... 10 
`
`“real time” ................................................................................. 11 
`
`B. 
`
`Expiration of the ’789 Patent .............................................................. 12 
`
`VIII.  LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ........................................... 13 
`
`IX.  SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE ................................................... 14 
`
`A.  Ground A: Lambrecht anticipates claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 13. ............. 14 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 14 
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 22 
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 23 
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 24 
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 25 
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`Ground B: Lambrecht in view of Artieri renders obvious
`claim 4 ................................................................................................. 27 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 27 
`
`Ground C: Lambrecht in view of Moore renders obvious
`claim 6 ................................................................................................. 28 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 28 
`
`D.  Ground D: Rathnam in view of Lambrecht renders obvious
`claims 1, 3, 4, 5, and 11 ....................................................................... 30 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`Claim 1 ...................................................................................... 30 
`
`Claim 3 ...................................................................................... 41 
`
`Claim 4 ...................................................................................... 42 
`
`Claim 5 ...................................................................................... 43 
`
`Claim 11 .................................................................................... 44 
`
`Ground E: Rathnam in view of Lambrecht and Moore renders
`obvious claim 6 ................................................................................... 45 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 6 ...................................................................................... 45 
`
`Ground F: Rathnam in view of Lambrecht and Slavenburg
`renders obvious claim 13. .................................................................... 47 
`
`1. 
`
`Claim 13 .................................................................................... 47 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`X. 
`
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 51 
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 12
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .......................................................................... 12
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ........................................................................................ 12
`
`Phillips v. AWHCorp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 10, 13
`
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 13
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hagenbuch,
`IPR2013-00483, Paper No. 37 at 5 (Dec. 5, 2014) ............................................. 13
`
`In re Translogic Tech., Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Yamamoto,
`740 F.2d 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .......................................................................... 10
`
`In re Zletz,
`13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ....................................................................... 9
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ............................................................................................. 6, 7, 8
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ...................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 51
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................... 3, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ................................................................................................... 2, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 51
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ............................................................................................ 2, 6
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764 (Aug. 14, 2012) ......................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`Ex. 1001 U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789 (“the ’789 patent”)
`Ex. 1002 File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`Ex. 1003 Reserved
`Ex. 1004 ISO/IEC 11172-2:1993: Information technology—Coding of moving
`pictures and associated audio for digital storage media at up to about
`1,5 Mbit/s—Part 2: Video,” (1st ed. August 1, 1993) (“MPEG
`Standard”)
`Ex. 1005 S. Rathnam et al., “An Architectural Overview of the Programmable
`Multimedia Processor, TM-1,” IEEE Proceedings of COMPCON ’96,
`pp. 319-326 (1996) (“Rathnam”)
`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 Reserved
`Ex. 1009 Reserved
`Ex. 1010 WorldCat Entry for Rathnam
`Ex. 1011 Patent Owner Claim Construction Brief in Case No. 2:14-cv-690,
`April 7, 2015
`Ex. 1012 Patent Owner Claim Construction Brief in Case No. 2:14-cv-902,
`June 18, 2015
`Ex. 1013 Reserved
`Ex. 1014 Brad Hansen, The Dictionary of Multimedia, 1997
`Ex. 1015 U.S. Patent No. 8,681,164
`Ex. 1016 Excerpt of File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,681,164
`Ex. 1017 Reserved
`Ex. 1018 Reserved
`Ex. 1019 Shanley, et al., “PCI System Architecture,” Addison-Wesley
`Publishing Company, 1995 (3rd ed.) (“Shanley”)
`Ex. 1020 Stone, H., “Microcomputer Interfacing,” Addison-Wesley Publishing
`Company, 1982
`Ex. 1021 Reserved
`Ex. 1022 Reserved
`Ex. 1023 U.S. Patent No. 5,797,028 (“Gulick 028”)
`Ex. 1024 “Accelerated Graphics Port Interface Specification,” Intel
`Corporation, July 31, 1996 (Revision 1.0) (“AGP”)
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`Description
`Exhibit
`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.”)
`Ex. 1031 Reserved
`Ex. 1032 U.S. Patent No. 5,682,484 (“Lambrecht”)
`Ex. 1033 Reserved
`Ex. 1034 Slavenburg, G., “The TriMedia VLIW-Based PCI Multimedia
`Processor,” Microprocessor Forum 1995, Oct. 10-11, 1995
`(“Slavenburg”)
`Ex. 1035 G. Moore, “Cramming more components onto integrated circuits,”
`Electronics, Vol. 38, No. 8, Apr. 19, 1965 (“Moore”)
`Ex. 1036 U.S. Patent No. 5,579,052 (“Artieri”)
`Ex. 1037 Reserved
`Ex. 1038 Reserved
`Ex. 1039 Reserved
`Ex. 1040 Reserved
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`ZTE USA, Inc. (“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1, 3-6, 11, and 13 (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,812,789 (“the ’789 patent”) (Ex. 1001) based on the same grounds as a pending
`
`IPR proceeding – namely, Case No. IPR2015-01944 (“the Samsung IPR”).
`
`For the same reasons previously, or currently being, considered by the
`
`Board, and on the exact same schedule, Petitioner respectfully seeks to join the
`
`Samsung IPR:
`
` In this petition, Petitioner asserts the arguments copied from the
`
`petition for the Samsung IPR (“the Samsung Petition”). Petitioner
`
`copies all sections from the Samsung Petition, with necessarily
`
`changes relevant to Petitioner and this Petition.
`
` In this petition, therefore, Petitioner asserts, word-for-word, only the
`
`arguments that the Board institutes, should institution occur, in the
`
`Samsung Petition. Thus, this petition does not add or alter any
`
`arguments that have been or are currently being considered by the
`
`Board, nor does it expand the grounds of invalidity that the Board
`
`has before it in the Samsung Petition.
`
` In this petition, Petitioner seeks to follow the same schedule that the
`
`Board will institute in the Samsung IPR, should institution occur.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`Because this petition is filed within 30 days of the prospective institution of
`
`the Samsung Petition, and because this petition is accompanied by a motion for
`
`joinder to the Samsung IPR, this petition is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 315(c).
`
`For the Board’s convenience, and because the substance of this petition is
`
`based upon the Samsung Petition, Petitioner notes that the following sections are
`
`copied verbatim from
`
`the Samsung Petition (albeit, necessarily updating
`
`“Petitioners” to “Petitioner” and pronouns related thereto, and changing the
`
`exhibit-reference prefix to “ZTE” from Samsung’s exhibit prefix “Samsung” (if
`
`there is such prefix), though the exhibits themselves are identical):
`
`Unchanged Subparts from the Samsung Petition
`IV. Grounds for Standing
`V.
`Identification of Challenges Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22 and 42.104(b)
`(including all subsections V.A-B)
`VI. The ’789 Patent
`VII. Claim Construction (including all subsections VII.A1-2 and VII.B)
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`IX. Specific Grounds of Challenge (including all subsections IX. A-F)
`X.
`Conclusion
`
`The following sections differ from the Samsung Petition in the following
`
`ways:
`
`Changed Subparts from the Samsung
`Petition
`I.
`Introduction
`
`Changes
`
`Updated to reflect that this petition
`asserts the same exact grounds as the
`Samsung Petition.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`II. Mandatory Notices Under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) (including
`subsections Real Party-In-Interest,
`Related Matters, and Lead and
`Back-Up Counsel and Service
`Information)
`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.15(a)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`Updated to reflect Real Parties-In-
`Interest as ZTE entities.
`
`Updated to reflect related matters
`involving the ’789 patent and its family
`patents.
`
`Updated to identify Petitioner’s counsel.
`Updated to reflect payment means.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner respectfully requests inter partes review of claims 1, 3-6, 11, and
`
`13 of the ’789 patent. This Petition shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that
`
`Petitioner will prevail on the Challenged Claims of the ’789 patent based on prior
`
`art that was not considered during prosecution. This Petition also shows by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that the prior art anticipates or renders obvious the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’789 patent. The Challenged Claims of the ’789 patent
`
`should be found unpatentable and cancelled.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)
`Real Party-in-Interest
`
`The real parties-in-interest are ZTE Corporation, ZTE (TX) Inc., and ZTE
`
`USA, Inc.
`
`Related Matters
`
`The following would affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding:
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`1.
`
`U.S. district court actions in which Patent Owner asserted the ’789
`
`patent include: Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. Huawei Techs.
`
`Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00687-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. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 2:15-cv-
`
`00225-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.); Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v.
`
`Apple, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex); Parthenon Unified Memory
`
`Architecture LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 2:15-cv-01950-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex).
`
`2.
`
`Prior U.S. district court actions in which Patent Owner’s predecessor-
`
`in-interest asserted the ’789 patent include: STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola
`
`Inc. et al., No. 4:03-cv-00276- LED (E.D. Tex.).
`
`3.
`
`The ’789 Patent is presently the subject of one pending IPR petition –
`
`the Samsung Petition. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al. v. Parthenon Unified
`
`Memory Architecture LLC, IPR2015-01944 Paper 2 (Sep. 22, 2015).
`
`4.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing IPR petitions against the following
`
`four related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,960,464; 7,321,368; 7,542,045; and
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`7,777,753. Because these patents are substantively similar, Petitioner requests, for
`
`efficiency and consistency, that the same panel be assigned to all five petitions.
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information:
`
`Powers of attorney are submitted with this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue (Lead Counsel)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`
`Two Freedom Square
`
`
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`
`Shaobin Zhu (Back-up Counsel)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`Mirae Asset Tower, 28/F, Unit A-B
`No. 166 Lujiazui Ring Road, Pudong
`Shanghai, P.R. China, 200120
`
`Carlos J. Rosario (Back-up Counsel)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`
` Garrett & Dunner, LLP
`
`
`Stanford Research Park
`
`
`
`3300 Hillview Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1203
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: (571) 203-2750
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 46,859
`
`Phone: (650) 521-3338
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: shaobin.zhu@finnegan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 62,741
`
`Phone: (650) 849-6671
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: carlos.rosario@finnegan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 67,922
`
`Counsel for Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at ZTE-PUMA-
`
`IPRs@finnegan.com, the above listed e-mail addresses, and hand delivery to the
`
`postal mailing address of lead counsel listed above.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`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. GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioner certifies that, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a), the ’789 patent is
`
`available for inter partes review, and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from
`
`requesting an inter partes review of the ’789 patent on the grounds identified in
`
`this petition.
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`AND 42.104(b)
`A.
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable on the following grounds:
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`Ground A. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), Lambrecht (Ex. 1032) anticipates
`
`claims 1, 3, 5, 11 and 13 (see Section IX.A).
`
`Ground B. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, Lambrecht (Ex. 1032) in view of
`
`Artieri (Ex. 1036) renders obvious claim 4 (see Section IX.B).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`Ground C. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, Lambrecht (Ex. 1032) in view of
`
`Moore (Ex. 1035) renders obvious claim 6 (see Section IX.C).
`
`Ground D. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, Rathnam (Ex. 1005) in view of
`
`Lambrecht (Ex. 1032) renders obvious claims 1, 3-5, 11 (see Section
`
`IX.D).
`
`Ground E. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, Rathnam (Ex. 1005), in view of
`
`Lambrecht (Ex. 1032) and Moore (Ex. 1035), renders obvious claim 6
`
`(see Section IX.E).
`
`Ground F. Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103, Rathnam (Ex. 1005), in view of
`
`Lambrecht (Ex. 1032) and Slavenburg (Ex. 1034), renders obvious
`
`claim 13 (see Section IX.F).
`
`Lambrecht was filed on November 20, 1995, and thus qualifies as prior art at
`
`least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Rathnam was published during the IEEE
`
`COMPCON ’96 Conference in February 1996 (see Ex. 1005 at 3), was available at
`
`the Library of Congress at least as of April 4, 1996 (see id. at 6), and was indexed
`
`in the WorldCat library database on April 23, 1996 (Ex. 1010). Therefore,
`
`Rathnam qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`Slavenburg was published in October 1995, during the 8th Annual Microprocessor
`
`Forum Conference (see Ex. 1034 at 1-2), and thus qualifies as prior art at least
`
`under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C § 102(a). Artieri was filed on May 24, 1994, and thus
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`qualifies as prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). Moore was
`
`published in Electronics, Vol. 38, No. 8, on April 19, 1965, and thus qualifies as
`
`prior art at least under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant
`
`B.
`Grounds A-C and Grounds D-F both challenge claims 1, 3-6, 11 and 13 of
`
`the ’789 patent. However, the grounds are not redundant because of several
`
`significant differences. For example, the primary references applied, Lambrecht
`
`(Ex. 1032) for Grounds A-C and Rathnam (Ex. 1005) for Grounds D-F, address the
`
`claimed “real time” operation, “memory interface,” and “decoder” in different
`
`ways. Also, Lambrecht has a chipset that Rathnam does not have, which affects
`
`the mapping to the claimed elements. Therefore, for at least these reasons,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests the Board adopt all proposed Grounds in this
`
`Petition, particularly because not adopting one of the grounds may affect how
`
`Petitioner later challenges the validity of the ’789 patent.
`
`VI. THE ’789 PATENT
`The ’789 patent, entitled “Video and/or Audio Decompression and/or
`
`Compression Device that Shares a Memory Interface,” was filed August 26, 1996
`
`and issued September 22, 1998. The ’789 patent concerns arbitrating access to a
`
`memory shared between a decoder and another device. See Ex. 1001, Abstract.
`
`Conventionally, the ’789 patent alleges, a video decoder would have its own
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`dedicated memory to allow it to operate in real time, which would remain unused
`
`most of the time and significantly increase costs. See id., 2:29-35, 3:50-59. The
`
`’789 patent proposes having a video decoder share memory with other devices.
`
`See id., 5:15-37. The ’789 patent accomplishes this using an arbiter, which
`
`arbitrates between the video decoder and another device when one of them
`
`requests access to the shared memory. See id., 6:15-23.
`
`But by the ’789 patent’s priority date, others had solved the same problem of
`
`a dedicated memory using the same arbitration scheme. See Ex. 1030, Stone Decl.
`
`at ¶¶ 36-66 (discussing Exs. 1004, 1007, 1019, 1020, 1023, 1024, 1025). None of
`
`the references applied below was considered during prosecution of the ’789 patent.
`
`(See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 1 (References Cited); see generally Ex. 1002.)
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`inter partes review,
`In
`the Board applies
`
`the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) standard to construe claim terms of an unexpired patent.1
`
`
`1 Because the standards applied in litigation differ from PTO proceedings, any
`
`interpretation of claim terms herein is not binding upon Petitioner in any related
`
`litigation. See In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Petitioner
`
`reserves its 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. 5,812,789
`
`
`Under the BRI standard, 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. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
`
`banc)).
`
`A. Claim Terms to Be Construed
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioner proposes BRI constructions
`
`for the following terms. All remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`“video decoder”
`
`1.
`Proposed BRI Construction: “hardware and/or software that translates data
`
`streams into video information”
`
`The term “video decoder” appears in claim 3. The ’789 patent generally
`
`refers to a decoder as a “video and/or audio decompression device.” Ex. 1001,
`
`1:46-51. 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., 12:23-27 (emphasis added). A conventional decoder
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`around the time of the alleged invention of the ’789 patent was understood to
`
`include “any hardware or software system that translates data streams into video or
`
`audio information.” Ex. 1014, 3.
`
`Consistent with
`
`this understanding of a decoder,
`
`the ’789 patent
`
`acknowledges that a decoder can be implemented as hardware or software. See,
`
`e.g., Ex. 1001, 5:43-45. In one example, the specification explains that video
`
`decoding can be performed by hardware and audio decoding can be performed by
`
`software. Id., 5:50-56.
`
`Therefore,
`
`consistent with
`
`the
`
`’789
`
`patent
`
`specification
`
`and
`
`contemporaneous dictionary definitions, the BRI of the term “video decoder” is
`
`“hardware and/or software that translates data streams into video information.”
`
`“real time”
`
`2.
`The term “real time” appears in independent claim 1. The ’789 patent and
`
`its related patents disclose that both bandwidth and latency are factors to consider
`
`as to whether a bus may operate in “real time” (see Ex. 1001, 3:13-21; Ex. 1015,
`
`7:59-8:2). Moreover, patents related to the ’789 patent describe that a PCI bus is
`
`an example of a real time bus (see Ex. 1015, 5:36-43, 8:13-21). In contrast, during
`
`prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 8,681,164 (“the ’164 patent”), which is related to
`
`the ’789 patent (see Ex. 1015 at 1:28-37), Applicants argued (1) a bus’s latency,
`
`irrespective of bandwidth, determines whether a bus satisfies a “real time”
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`requirement, and, as a result, (2) a PCI bus does not satisfy a “real time”
`
`requirement. Ex. 1016 at 8; see also Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357
`
`F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (finding an applicant’s statement to the USPTO
`
`in a later application is relevant to the scope of the claimed invention in an earlier
`
`issued patent); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
`
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`The discrepancy between the description of “real time” in the ’789 patent
`
`and the prosecution history of the ’164 patent would have caused one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art not to be informed, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of a
`
`bus that satisfies the “real time” requirement. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments,
`
`Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2123 (2014).
`
`In related litigation, Patent Owner has argued that the term “real time”
`
`means “fast enough to keep up with an input data stream.” Ex. 1011 at 18; Ex.
`
`1012 at 16. Therefore, while Petitioner submits that claim 1’s recitation of “real
`
`time” is indefinite, Petitioner has applied Patent Owner’s interpretation of “real
`
`time” when applying the prior art to claim 1.
`
`Expiration of the ’789 Patent
`
`B.
`In addition to the BRI analysis above, Petitioner recognizes that the ’789
`
`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.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`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). Petitioner respectfully submits 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 ’789 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, ¶¶ 74-77.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
`A. Ground A: Lambrecht anticipates claims 1, 3, 5, 11, and 13.
`1.
`Claim 1
`1[pre]: “An electronic system coupled to a memory, comprising:”
`Lambrecht discloses an electronic system coupled to a memory. See, e.g.,
`
`a.
`
`Ex. 1032, Lambrecht at Fig. 21 (annotated below); see also id. at 27:4-9, 26:51-56
`
`(“The computer system of FIG. 21 is similar to the computer system of FIG. 1.
`
`However, the mode logic in the computer system of FIG. 21 is operable to place
`
`the PCI bus 120 in either a normal PCI mode or in a real-time/multimedia mode
`
`optimized for multimedia transfers of periodic data.”); see also Ex. 1030, Stone
`
`Decl. ¶ 78.
`
`In particular, Lambrecht teaches an electronic system that includes a CPU,
`
`chipset, and various multimedia devices. See id. A dynamic random access
`
`memory (DRAM) acts as main memory and is coupled to the electronic system.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`
`See, e.g., id. at 27:4-9 (“The bridge or chipset 106 couples through a memory bus
`
`108 to main memory 110. The main memory 110 is preferably DRAM (dynamic
`
`random access memory) or EDO (extended data out) memory, or other types of
`
`memory, as desired. The chipset logic 106 preferably includes a memory
`
`controller for interfacing to the main memory 110.”), Fig. 21; see also Ex. 1030,
`
`Stone Decl. ¶ 78; analysis and citations below for other claim elements.
`
`b.
`
`1[a]: “a first device that requires access to the memory;”
`Lambrecht discloses this limitation. See, e.g., Ex. 1032 at Fig. 21; 27:4-9;
`
`see also Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶ 78. In particular, Lambrecht discloses a first
`
`device that requires access to the memory. See, e.g., Ex. 1032, Fig. 21 (annotated
`
`below), 27:32-34 (“One or more multimedia devices or multimedia devices 142D,
`
`144D, and 146D are coupled to each of the PCI bus 120 and the multimedia bus
`
`130.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Lambrecht adds:
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. No. 5,812,789
`
`“The multimedia devices 142D-146D may be any of
`various
`types of
`input/output devices,
`including
`multimedia devices and communication devices, as
`described above. The multimedia devices 142D-146D
`are preferably similar to the multimedia devices 142-146
`described above, except that the interface logic 962 in the
`multimedia devices 142D-146D each
`include
`the
`interface logic for interfacing to the PCI bus 120 in
`multiple modes. As described above, the multimedia
`devices 142D-146D may comprise video accelerator or
`graphics accelerator cards, video playback cards, MPEG
`decoder cards, sound cards, network interface cards,
`SCSI adapters for interfacing to various input/output
`devices, such as CD-ROMS and tape drives, or other
`devices as desired.”
`
`See id. at 27:43-56 (emphasis added). The first device disclosed in Lambrecht
`
`requires access to memory. See id. at 27:57-59 (“Thus, the multimedia devices
`
`142D-146D communicate with each other and with the CPU 102 and main
`
`memory 110 via the PCI bus 120, as is well known in the art.”).
`
`c.
`
`1[b]: “a decoder that requires access to the memory sufficient to
`maintain real time operation; and”
`Lambrecht discloses this limitation. See, e.g., Ex. 1032 at Fig. 21 (annotated
`
`below), 27:32-34 (“One or more multimedia devices or