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. 7,777,753
`Case IPR No. IPR2016-00670
`___________________________________________
`
`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 Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II. MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .............................. 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Real Party-in-Interest ............................................................................ 5
`
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 5
`
`Lead and Back-Up Counsel ................................................................... 6
`
`Service Information ............................................................................... 7
`
`III.
`
`PAYMENT OF FEES UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) .................................... 7
`
`IV. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ...................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22
`AND 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge ............................................................ 8
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant ........................................... 9
`
`VI. THE ’753 PATENT ......................................................................................... 9
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ..........................................................................10
`
`A.
`
`Claim Terms to Be Construed .............................................................10
`
`1.
`
`“decoder” ..................................................................................11
`
`B.
`
`Expiration of the ’753 Patent ..............................................................12
`
`VIII. LEVEL OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ...........................................12
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE ...................................................13
`
`A. Ground A: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders obvious
`claims 1 and 2. .....................................................................................13
`
`1.
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders claim 1
`obvious ......................................................................................13
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`2.
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders claim 2
`obvious ......................................................................................22
`
`B.
`
`Ground B: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Stearns,
`renders obvious claim 3. ......................................................................23
`
`1.
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Stearns, renders
`claim 3 obvious .........................................................................23
`
`C.
`
`Ground C: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Shanley,
`renders obvious claim 4. ......................................................................25
`
`1.
`
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard and Shanley, renders
`claim 4 obvious .........................................................................25
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 16, 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .................................................... 10, 12
`
`In re Rambus, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 12
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Hagenbuch,
`IPR2013- 00483, Paper No. 37 at 5 (Dec. 5, 2014) ............................................ 12
`
`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) ..................................................................... 10
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311-19..................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................... 8
`
`- iii -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.15(a) ............................................................................................... 3, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ....................................................................................................... 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101 ................................................................................................... 27
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............................................................................................. 3, 7
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012)....................................................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties 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
`
`- v -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties 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”)
`
`- vi -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 311-19 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.100 et seq., ZTE USA, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) respectfully requests inter partes review (“IPR”) of claims 1-4 (the
`
`“Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,777,753 (“the ’753 patent”) (Ex. 1001)
`
`based on identical instituted grounds as the pending and joined IPR proceeding,
`
`namely Case No. IPR2015-01501 (“the HTC IPR”). 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.
`
`For the same reasons previously considered and instituted by the Board, on
`
`the exact same schedule, Petitioner respectfully seeks to join the HTC IPR:
`
`• In this petition, Petitioner asserts the arguments copied from the petition
`
`for the HTC IPR (“the HTC Petition”).
`
`• In this petition, therefore, Petitioner asserts only the arguments that the
`
`Board has already instituted in the HTC IPR. Thus, this petition does not add or
`
`alter any arguments that have already been considered by the Board, and this
`
`petition does not seek to expand the grounds of invalidity that the Board has
`
`already found support of institution of IPR proceedings.
`
`• In this petition, the Petitioner seeks to follow the same schedule that the
`
`Board has instituted for the HTC IPR.
`
`Because this petition is filed within one year of when Petitioner, and the real
`
`parties-in-interest, were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the ’753
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`patent, and because this petition is accompanied by a motion for joinder to the
`
`HTC IPR, this petition is timely and proper under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`For the Board’s convenience, and because the substance of this petition is
`
`based upon the HTC Petition, Petitioner notes that the following sections are
`
`copied from the HTC Petition (albeit, necessarily updating “Petitioners” to
`
`“Petitioner” and pronouns related thereto, changing the exhibit-reference prefix to
`
`“ZTE” from Samsung’s exhibit-reference prefix “Samsung” (if there is such a
`
`prefix, though the exhibits themselves are identical), updating the section numbers
`
`to account for the deletion of Grounds that were not instituted in the HTC IPR, and
`
`replacing references to the deleted Grounds with text from the deleted Grounds):
`
`Unchanged Subparts from the HTC Petition
`VI. The ’753 Patent
`VII. Claim Construction
`VIII. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`X.
`Conclusion
`
`The following sections differ from the HTC Petition in the following ways:
`
`Changed Subparts from the HTC
`Petition
`Introduction
`
`I.
`
`II.A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`
`II.B. Related Matters
`
`Changes
`
`• Deleted discussion of claims 7-10
`and 12.
`• Removed discussion of Gulick 983
`(Ex. 1017), as Petitioner does not
`assert any invalidity ground that
`relies on Gulick 983.
`• Updated to reflect Real Parties-in-
`Interest as ZTE entities.
`• Deleted discussion of U.S. Patent
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`II.C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`
`II.D. Service Information
`
`III. Payment of Fees Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.15(a)
`IV. Certification of Grounds For
`Standing Under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(a)
`
`V.A. Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`V.B. The Proposed Grounds are Not
`Redundant
`
`IX.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
`IX.B. Ground B: Gulick 983 in view of
`MPEG Standard, Shanley, and
`Gove, renders obvious, under
`35 U.S.C. § 103, claim 12
`IX.C. Ground C: Bowes, in view of
`MPEG Standard, renders obvious
`claims 1 and 2
`
`Nos. 8,054,315 and 8,681,164 as
`petitions will not be filed against
`these two patents.
`• Updated to identity Petitioner’s
`counsel.
`• Updated to identify one lead
`counsel.
`• Updated payment means.
`
`• Updated to reflect that Petitioner
`was served a complaint asserting
`infringement of the ’753 patent no
`earlier than February 26, 2015.
`• Deleted Grounds A, B, and E-H, ,
`as those invalidity grounds were not
`instituted in the HTC IPR.
`• Renamed Grounds C, D, E as
`Grounds A, B, and C, respectively.
`• Removed discussion of Gulick 983
`(Ex. 1017), Gove (Ex. 1006), and
`Whai (Ex. 1018), as Petitioner does
`not assert any invalidity ground that
`relies on Gulick 983, Gove, or
`Whai.
`• Deleted discussion of claims 7-10
`and 12.
`• Removed discussion of grounds that
`Petitioner does not assert.
`• Deleted, as this invalidity ground
`was not instituted in the HTC IPR.
`
`• Deleted, as this invalidity ground
`was not instituted in the HTC IPR.
`
`• Renamed Ground C as Ground A.
`• Inserted discussion of MPEG
`Standard previously included in
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`IX.D. Ground D: Bowes, in view of
`MPEG Standard and Stearns,
`renders obvious claim 3
`
`IX.E. Ground E: Bowes, in view of
`MPEG Standard and Shanley,
`renders obvious claim 4
`
`IX.F. Ground F: Bowes, in view of
`MPEG Standard and Whai, renders
`obvious claims 7-8
`IX.G. Ground G: Bowes, in view of
`MPEG Standard, Whai, and
`Shanley, renders obvious claims 9
`and 10
`IX.H. Ground H: Bowes, in view of
`MPEG Standard, Whai, and Gove,
`renders obvious claim 12
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ground A, Section IX.A.2 of the
`HTC Petition.
`• Renamed Ground D as Ground B.
`• Inserted discussion of MPEG
`Standard previously included in
`Ground A, Section IX.A.3 of the
`HTC Petition.
`• Renamed Ground E as Ground C.
`• Inserted discussion of Shanley
`previously included in Ground A,
`Section IX.A.4 of the HTC Petition.
`• Deleted, as this invalidity ground
`was not instituted in the HTC
`Petition.
`• Deleted, as this invalidity ground
`was not instituted in the HTC
`Petition.
`
`• Deleted, as this invalidity ground
`was not instituted in the HTC IPR.
`
`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
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`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.
`
`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, Bowes (Ex.
`
`1003) 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 Party-in-Interest
`The real parties-in-interest are ZTE Corporation, ZTE (TX) Inc., and ZTE
`
`USA, 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
`
`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-
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`Petitioner is concurrently filing IPR petitions against the following
`
`four related patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,812,789; 5,960,464; 7,321,368 and
`
`7,542,045. Because these patents are substantively similar, Petitioner requests, for
`
`efficiency and consistency, that the same panel be assigned to all five petitions.
`
`C. Lead and Back-Up Counsel
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: (571) 203-2750
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 46,859
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Phone: (650) 521-3338
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: shaobin.zhu@finnegan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 62,741
`
`
`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
`D.
`Counsel for Petitioner consents to service by e-mail at ZTE-PUMA-
`
`Phone: (650) 849-6671
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`Email: carlos.rosario@finnegan.com
`USPTO Reg. No. 67,922
`
`Service Information
`
`IPRs@finnegan.com, the above listed e-mail addresses, and hand delivery to the
`
`postal mailing address of 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)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’753 patent is available for inter partes review,
`
`and that Petitioner is not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified in this Petition. Petitioner was
`
`served a complaint asserting infringement of the ’753 patent no earlier than
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`February 26, 2015. None of Petitioner, real parties-in-interest, or privy of
`
`Petitioner was served before that date. The Petitioner 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.
`The Challenged Claims are unpatentable under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103 on
`
`Statutory Grounds of Challenge
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Ground A. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004), renders
`
`obvious claims 1 and 2 (see Section IX.A)
`
`Ground B. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004) and Stearns
`
`(Ex. 1007), renders obvious claim 3 (see Section IX.B)
`
`Ground C. Bowes (Ex. 1003), in view of MPEG Standard (Ex. 1004) and Shanley
`
`(Ex. 1019), renders obvious claim 4 (see Section IX.C)
`
`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). 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).
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`The Proposed Grounds are Not Redundant
`
`B.
`Grounds A-C challenge claims 1-2, 3, and 4 of ’753 patent, respectively.
`
`The grounds are not redundant. 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 ’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.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`In
`inter partes review,
`the Board applies
`
`the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation (“BRI”) standard to construe claim terms of an unexpired patent.1
`
`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, Petitioner proposes BRI constructions
`
`for the following terms. All remaining terms should be given their plain meaning.
`
`
`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).
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`“decoder”
`
`1.
`Proposed BRI Construction: “hardware and/or software that translates data
`
`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.”
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`
`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`Expiration of the ’753 Patent
`
`B.
`In addition to the BRI analysis above, Petitioner recognizes that the ’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). 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 ’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.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`IX. SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
`A. Ground A: Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders obvious
`claims 1 and 2.
`Bowes, in view of MPEG Standard, renders claim 1 obvious
`1.
`1[pre]: “An electronic system comprising:”
`Bowes (see generally Ex. 1030 at ¶ 82) discloses a computer system as the
`
`a.
`
`claimed “electronic system.” See, e.g., Ex. 1003, Abstract, 3:65-67, 5:7-12. For
`
`example, Bowes discloses “[a] computer system in which a digital signal processor
`
`resides on the computer system’s memory bus without requiring a block of
`
`dedicated static random access memory.” Ex. 1003, Abstract; see also Ex. 1030,
`
`Stone Decl. ¶ 153.
`
`b.
`
`1[a]: “a bus;”
`Bowes’ memory bus 110 constitutes the claimed “bus.” For example, Bowes
`
`discloses that the “system’s main memory subsystem 14 [is] coupled to the
`
`memory bus 110,” and that “the main memory subsystem 14 coupled to the
`
`memory bus refers to the system's DRAM and the controller required for writing to
`
`and reading from the DRAM based on a requested transaction.” Ex. 1003, 5:20-
`
`28; see also Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶ 154.
`
`c.
`
`1[b]: “a main memory coupled to the bus having stored therein data
`corresponding to video images;”
`Bowes’ main memory subsystem 14 constitutes the claimed “main memory.”
`
`Main memory subsystem 14 stores data to be processed by digital signal processor
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`(DSP) 20. For example, DSP 20 reads data to be processed from main memory
`
`subsystem 14 using a “block read” operation. Ex. 1003, 7:2-12. Main memory
`
`subsystem 14 also stores data that has already been processed by digital signal
`
`processor (DSP) 20. For example, DSP 20 writes previously processed data to
`
`main memory subsystem 14 using a “block write” operation. Ex. 1003, 7:2-12.
`
`Bowes contemplates supporting video applications, id., 1:24-41, and
`
`discloses video controllers 131 coupled to memory bus 110, id., 6:6-18. Bowes
`
`also discloses that DSP 20 performs “image processing.” Id, 6:33-38. Thus,
`
`Bowes discloses main memory subsystem 14 coupled to memory bus 110 having
`
`stored therein data corresponding to video images. See Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶
`
`155.
`
`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;”
`Bowes in combination with MPEG Standard discloses these elements.
`
`Specifically, Bowes’ DSP 20 constitutes the claimed “video circuit.” Bowes’
`
`invention “provides for the DSP 20 to reside on the system’s memory bus and
`
`operate from the computer system’s main memory subsystem 14.” Ex. 1003, 6:23-
`
`26. DSP 20 uses “DSP bus interface 212” to couple to memory bus 110. Id., 9:64-
`
`10:8. For example, DSP 20 receives data to be processed from main memory
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`subsystem 14 through a “block read” operation. Id., 7:2-6. Also, DSP 20 uses a
`
`“block write” operation to push data to main memory subsystem 14 so that other
`
`parts of the computer system can utilize it. Id., 7:6-12; see also Ex. 1030, Stone
`
`Decl. ¶¶155-56.
`
`Bowes discloses that DSP 20 performs “image processing,” id., 6:33-38,
`
`which MPEG Standard (see generally Ex. 1030 at ¶ 83) discloses includes video
`
`image decoding. Ex. 1004 at 7-8 (“0.4 Decoding”), 42 (“2.4.4. The video
`
`decoding process”). In MPEG video decoding, MPEG Standard teaches, some
`
`currently decoded video images are stored for decoding subsequent video images.
`
`See, e.g., Ex. 1004 at 8 (§ 0.4) (“After all the macroblocks in the picture have been
`
`processed, the picture has been reconstructed. If it is an I-picture or a P-picture it
`
`is a reference picture for subsequent pictures and is stored, replacing the oldest
`
`stored reference picture.”).
`
`Bowes contemplates supporting video applications, Ex. 1003 at 1:24-41, and
`
`discloses video controllers 131 coupled to memory bus 110, id., 6:6-18. One of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Bowes’ DSP 20 in
`
`view of MPEG Standard to perform MPEG video decoding. At the time of the
`
`alleged invention of the ’753 patent, the MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 standards were
`
`“currently in use.” Ex. 1001, 1:53-58. Indeed, the '753 patent admits that “[t]he
`
`MPEG standards [were] currently well accepted standards.” Ex. 1001, 2:6-9.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Petition for Inter Parties Review of U.S. Pat. No. 7,777,753
`
`
`Thus, modifying Bowes’ DSP 20 to perform MPEG video decoding per MPEG
`
`Standard would constitute a combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
`
`398, 401 (2007); see also Ex. 1030, Stone Decl. ¶¶ 157-61. Indeed, the MPEG
`
`Standard “was developed in response to the growing need for a common format
`
`representing compressed video on various digital storage media,” which would
`
`have motivated on skilled in the art to modify multimedia engine 11