Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 48 PagelD #: 3478
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-00690-RSP
`
`(Lead)
`
`Case No. 2:14-cv-00691-JRG-RSP
`(Consolidated)
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`§ §
`
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY
`
`ARCHITECTURE, LLC
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION and
`HTC AMERICA, INC.
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY
`ARCHITECTURE, LLC
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS USA., INC.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`On June 5, 2015, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`disputed terms in the nine Asserted Patents in this case. The Court, having considered the
`
`parties’ claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 120, 121, 122) and their arguments at the hearing,
`
`issues this Memorandum Opinion and Order construing the disputed tenns.
`
`BACKGROUND AND THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture, LLC (“ U1\/IA”) brings two actions: first,
`
`against HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc.; and second, against LG Electronics, Inc. and LG
`
`Electronics USA,
`
`Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”). These actions allege that Defendants
`
`infringed nine of PU1\/IA’s patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,812,789 (“the ’789 Patent”), 6,058,459
`
`(“the ’459 Patent”), 6,427,194 (“the ’194 Patent”), 7,321,368 (“the ’368 Patent”), 7,542,045
`
`1
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`
`Apple V. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`1 of 48
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`1 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 48 PageID #: 3479
`
`(“the ’045 Patent”), 7,777,753 (“the ’753 Patent”), 8,054,315 (“the ’315 Patent”), 8,681,164
`
`(“the ’164 Patent”) and 5,960,464 (“the ’464 Patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). Of
`
`the nine patents, two patents, the ’789 Patent and the ’459 Patent, were both filed on August 26,
`
`1996, rely on similar specifications, and incorporate each other by reference. Six patents are
`
`based on continuation applications of the ’459 Patent: the ’194 Patent, the ’368 Patent, the ’045
`
`Patent, the ’753 Patent, the ’315 Patent, and the ’164 Patent. One patent, the ’464 Patent,1 relies
`
`on a specification that is not shared by any of the other Asserted Patents.
`
`In general, the ’789 Patent, the ’459 Patent, the ’194 Patent, the ’368, the ’045 Patent, the
`
`’753 Patent, the ’315 Patent, and the ’164 Patent relate to systems in which a first device (for
`
`example a processor) and a decoder/encoder share a common memory. For example, the ’459
`
`Patent abstract recites:
`
`An electronic system provides direct access between a first device and a
`decoder/encoder and a memory. The electronic system can be included in a
`computer in which case the memory is a main memory. Direct access is
`accomplished through one or more memory interfaces. Direct access is also
`accomplished in some embodiments by direct coupling of the memory to a bus,
`and in other embodiments, by direct coupling of the first device and
`decoder/encoder to a bus. The electronic system includes an arbiter for
`determining access for the first device and/or the decoder/encoder to the memory
`for each access request. The arbiter may be monolithically integrated into a
`memory interface of the decoder/encoder or the first device. The decoder may be
`a video decoder configured to decode a bit stream formatted to comply with the
`MPEG-2 standard. The memory may store predicted images which are obtained
`from a single preceding image and may also store intra images. Bidirectional
`images which are directly supplied to a display adapter may be obtained from two
`preceding intra or predicted images.
`
`’459 Patent Abstract.
`
`
`1 The ’464 Patent was filed on August 23, 1996.
`2
`
`
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`2 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 48 PageID #: 3480
`
`
`
`The remaining patent, the ’464 Patent, relates generally to a system whereby a decoder,
`
`which requires contiguous blocks of memory, can utilize noncontiguous blocks of the system’s
`
`memory. The ’464 patent abstract recites:
`
`A method and apparatus employing a memory management system that can be
`used with applications requiring a large contiguous block of memory, such as
`video decompression techniques (e.g., MPEG 2 decoding). The system operates
`with a computer and the computer's operating system to request and employ
`approximately 500 4-kilobyte pages in two or more noncontiguous blocks of the
`main memory to construct a contiguous 2-megabyte block of memory. The
`system can employ, on a single chip, a direct memory access engine, a
`microcontroller, a small block of optional memory, and a video decoder circuit.
`The microcontroller retains the blocks of multiple pages of the main memory, and
`the page descriptors of these blocks, so as to lock down these blocks of memory
`and prohibit the operating system or other applications from using them. The
`microcontroller requests the page descriptors for each of the blocks, and programs
`a lookup table or memory mapping system in the on-chip memory to form a
`contiguous block of memory. As a result, the video decoder circuit can perform
`operations on a 2-megabyte contiguous block of memory, where
`the
`microcontroller employs the lookup table to translate each 2-megabyte contiguous
`address requested by the video decoder circuit to its appropriate page in the main
`memory. As soon as the video decoding operations are complete, the
`microcontroller releases the blocks of multiple pages of memory back for use by
`the computer.
`
`’464 Patent Abstract.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`1. Claim Construction
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start
`
`by considering the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`
`
`3
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`3 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 4 of 48 PageID #: 3481
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meanings as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning, because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the
`
`ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to
`
`permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at
`
`1325. But, “‘[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of
`
`
`
`4
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`4 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 5 of 48 PageID #: 3482
`
`disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification
`
`will not generally be read into the claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d
`
`1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560,
`
`1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The prosecution history is another
`
`tool to supply the proper context for claim construction because a patent applicant may also
`
`define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a patent applicant may define a term
`
`in prosecuting a patent.”).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
`
`understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
`
`claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
`
`may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`2. Claim Indefiniteness
`
`
`
`Patent claims must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded
`
`as the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. “[I]ndefiniteness is a question of law and in effect part of
`
`claim construction.” ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc., 700 F.3d 509, 517 (Fed. Cir. 2012). A
`
`
`
`5
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`5 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 6 of 48 PageID #: 3483
`
`party challenging the definiteness of a claim must show it is invalid by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. Young v. Lumenis, Inc., 492 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`The definiteness standard of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that:
`
`[A] patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history,
`inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable
`certainty. The definiteness requirement, so understood, mandates clarity, while
`recognizing that absolute precision is unattainable. The standard we adopt
`accords with opinions of this Court stating that “the certainty which the law
`requires in patents is not greater than is reasonable, having regard to their subject-
`matter.
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129–30 (2014) (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`3. Construing Claim Terms that Have Previously Been Construed by This Court or
`Other Courts
`
`This is not the first time a Court in this District has construed some of the disputed terms.
`
`In STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 327 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Tex. 2004) the Court
`
`construed the ’789 Patent. This previous construction is not controlling here but it can be
`
`instructive and will, at times, provide part of the basis for the Court’s analysis. See Burns,
`
`Morris & Stewart Ltd. P’ship v. Masonite Int’l Corp., 401 F. Supp. 2d 692, 697 (E.D. Tex. 2005)
`
`(while a previous construction may be instructive and provide the basis of the analysis, the
`
`previous construction is not binding on the court, particularly when there are new parties and
`
`those parties have presented new arguments).
`
`AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties agree that “simultaneously accesses the bus” means “accesses the bus at the
`
`
`
`
`
`same time.” (Dkt. No. 123-2 at 4). The parties also agree that the following terms require no
`
`construction: “without requiring a second bus,” “without also requiring a second bus” and “video
`
`
`
`6
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`6 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 7 of 48 PageID #: 3484
`
`stream input device circuit.” (Dkt. No. 120 at 24, 28); (Dkt. No. 121 at 1). At the oral hearing,
`
`the parties agreed that “display device” means “screen and its circuitry.” (Dkt. No. 137 at 4). At
`
`the oral hearing, the parties also agreed that “display adapter” means “an adapter that processes
`
`images for a display device.” (Id.).
`
`
`
`DISPUTED TERMS
`
`1. “bus” (’789 Patent claims 1, 13; ’459 Patent claims 1, 2, 7, 11, 13; ’194 Patent claims
`1, 2, 9, 11, 16-18, 23; ’368 Patent claims 1, 5, 7, 13, 19, 20, 23; ’045 Patent claims 1, 4,
`5, 12, 15; ’753 Patent claims 1, 7; ’315 Patent claim 1 and ’164 Patent claims 1, 6, 7)
`
`PUMA’s Construction
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternatively: “a signal line or a set of signal
`lines to which a number of devices are
`coupled and over which information may be
`transferred”
`
`
`Defendants’ Construction
`“a signal line or set of parallel signal lines to
`which a number of devices are attached and
`over which information may be broadcast
`among them”
`
`The primary disputes between the parties relate to PUMA’s inclusion of the word
`
`“coupled” and Defendants’ inclusion of the words “parallel” and “broadcast among them.” The
`
`parties’ disputes on these issues turn on whether a “bus” can have intervening components and
`
`whether two buses are included in the construction of “bus.”
`
` Positions of the Parties
`
`
`
`PUMA asserts that the term “bus” is well-known in the art and does not need
`
`construction. PUMA’s alternative construction comes
`
`from STMicroelectronics.
`
`In
`
`STMicroelectronics, the parties agreed that “bus” should be construed as “a signal or set of signal
`
`lines to which a number of devices are coupled and over which information may be transferred
`
`between them.” STMicroelectronics, 327 F. Supp. 2d at 711. PUMA asserts that its construction
`
`is consistent with multiple extrinsic evidence dictionaries. (Dkt. No. 120 at 8).
`
`
`
`7
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`7 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 8 of 48 PageID #: 3485
`
`
`
`PUMA objects to Defendants’ inclusion of “broadcast” and “parallel” in their proposed
`
`construction. PUMA asserts that the word “broadcast” itself requires additional construction, and
`
`that, to the extent “broadcast” means “transmitted,” PUMA’s use of the word “transferred” is
`
`less ambiguous and less confusing.
`
`PUMA asserts that if Defendants have proposed “broadcast” because “broadcast” has a
`
`specific meaning, limiting “bus” in this manner is not supported by the specification. (Id. at 9).
`
`Not every bus “broadcasts” a signal to all locations on the line, and PUMA asserts that
`
`Defendants’ construction would read out types of buses that were known and commonly used in
`
`the art at the time. For example, the SPARC memory bus (“Mbus”) developed by Sun
`
`Microsystems and similar circuit-switch or multiplexed buses. (Dkt. No. 122 at 2).
`
`
`
`PUMA objects to Defendants’ use of the word “parallel” because it is as ambiguous as
`
`“broadcast.” PUMA asserts that “parallel” could refer to either a geometrical arrangement (i.e.,
`
`parallel versus perpendicular lines) or to a method of data transmission (i.e., parallel data versus
`
`serial data). (Dkt. No. 120 at 9). PUMA states that the Asserted Patents do not make either of
`
`those distinctions and do not use the term “parallel.”
`
`
`
`Defendants assert that the construction stipulated to in STMicroelectronics does not apply
`
`in this case because STMicroelectronics involved only the ’789 Patent. Defendants further assert
`
`that the Court’s construction in STMicroelectronics fails for two reasons. First, the
`
`STMicroelectronics construction does not distinguish between a single bus and multiple buses.
`
`Defendants assert this distinction is critical because some claims explicitly exclude a second bus.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’459 Patent, which states, “without also requiring a second bus.”
`
`Defendants note that similar language is found in other claims of the ’459 Patent and in the ’194
`
`Patent claims. (Dkt. No. 121 at 2, n.1).
`
`
`
`8
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`8 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 9 of 48 PageID #: 3486
`
`Second, Defendants assert that the STMicroelectronics construction fails to consider
`
`statements made during the prosecution of the ’368 Patent. Defendants assert that during the
`
`prosecution of the ’368 Patent, the Applicants required a “bus” to be more than a local point-to-
`
`point connection between two devices. (Id. at 2). Defendants assert that their construction
`
`accounts for this prosecution history statement because it distinguishes between busses that can
`
`provide a point-to-point connection between two devices from busses that must connect more
`
`than two devices.
`
`As to the words “broadcast” and “parallel” not appearing in the claims, Defendants assert
`
`that these concepts are contained throughout the claims. (Id. at 2). Defendants assert that
`
`“broadcast” reflects a fundamental property of a “signal line” and distinguishes one bus from
`
`multiple buses. Defendants assert that a signal line carries only one signal at a time. Defendants
`
`assert that a signal line cannot convey two different signals from two different sources at the
`
`same time, or else a “contention” would occur. (Id. at 3). Defendants assert that the patents
`
`include an arbiter to prevent any contentions.
`
`Defendants point to Figure 1c of the ’789 Patent as being illustrative. Defendants assert
`
`that the PCI bus 170 and ISA bus 198 present a signal everywhere on the line and, thus, the
`
`signal is available to any device attached to the line. Defendants assert that to “broadcast”
`
`information on a signal line of a bus means that the entire signal line carries the same
`
`information, regardless of the number of devices receiving the information. Defendants assert
`
`that, in contrast, if the signal line is broken into separate parts by an intervening component, then
`
`two buses are present. For example, Defendants assert that if a switch is present, so that a device
`
`broadcasts to only part of the signal line, or so that different devices may transmit information
`
`separately on different parts of the signal line, then more than one bus is present. (Id. at 4).
`
`
`
`9
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`9 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 10 of 48 PageID #: 3487
`
`
`
`Defendants assert that PUMA’s construction is too broad in that the construction
`
`potentially covers configurations that include multiple, separate, buses. Defendants again point to
`
`’789 Patent Figure 1c as an example. Defendants assert that under PUMA’s construction, the PCI
`
`bus 170 and ISA bus 198 could constitute a single bus as the two buses are connected through
`
`the PCI bridge 192. Defendants assert that such a reading contradicts the specification,
`
`prosecution histories, and the understanding of one skilled in the art. (Id. at 4-5). Defendants
`
`assert that the patents clearly disclose two buses: PCI bus 170 and ISA bus 198. Defendants
`
`similarly point to the three buses of ’459 Patent Figure 7 (buses 170, 198, and 185). Defendants
`
`assert that PUMA’s construction would interpret the three buses as a single bus. (Id. at 5).
`
`
`
`Defendants also assert that the prosecution history of the ’459 Patent supports their
`
`construction. During prosecution, a rejection was based on U.S. Patent No. 5,682,484
`
`(“Lambrecht”). Defendants point to Lambrecht Figure 1:
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`10 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 11 of 48 PageID #: 3488
`
`(Dkt. No. 121 at 5 (Lambrecht Figure 1, color coding added)). Defendants assert that during
`
`prosecution, the Applicants distinguished the PCI bus 120 and memory bus 108 of Lambrecht as
`
`being two buses. Defendants assert the Applicants then added to the claims this limitation: that
`
`the devices access the memory “without requiring a second bus.” (Id. at 7 (citing Ex. 8 at 0791)).
`
`Defendants assert that the Applicants, thus, distinguished the PCI bus 120 and memory bus 108
`
`as being separate busses due to the intervening PCI bridge chipset 106. (Id.). Defendants assert
`
`that the prosecution history makes clear that a “bus” cannot include a set of signal lines that are
`
`sequential or in series with other signal lines. Defendants assert that the series connection in
`
`Lambrecht of the PCI bus 120, PCI bridge chipset 106, and memory bus 108 is not a “bus,” but
`
`rather two sequential buses. (Id.).
`
`
`
`Defendants also state that the language “among them” that is used in Defendants’
`
`construction is relevant to prosecution history statements. Defendants assert that such language
`
`makes clear that connections between only two devices are not a bus. Defendants point to a
`
`rejection in the ’368 Patent prosecution based on U.S. Patent No. 5,576,765 (“Cheney”).
`
`Defendants assert that, with regard to Cheney, the Applicants asserted that a connection between
`
`just a memory and a decoder was not a bus. Specifically, Defendants point to the arguments
`
`regarding Cheney Figure 4:
`
`
`
`11
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`11 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 12 of 48 PageID #: 3489
`
` (Dkt. No. 121 at 7 (Cheney Figure 4, color coding added)). Defendants assert that the Applicants
`
`argued that the lines 221, 223 and 225 connecting the memory 601 and the decoder 201 were
`
`
`
`not a bus:
`
`The connection between memory 601 and decoder 201 is a local connection and
`connects only the two devices together. It is not a bus as was well recognized by
`Cheney and as is recognized by those with skill in the art.
`
`(Dkt. No. 121 Ex. 11 at 01236) (emphasis added). Defendants assert that in contradiction to this
`
`statement, Cheney recognized that the lines in question were buses: “[t]he interface between the
`
`memory management unit 600 and the memory 601 includes an address bus, 221, a bidirectional
`
`data bus, 223, and a control bus 225.” (Dkt. No. 121 Ex. 9 (Cheney) at 7:35-37). Defendants
`
`assert that Cheney never describes a “local connection.” Defendants assert that the Applicants
`
`made a clear and unmistakable statement that a connection between only two devices is “not a
`
`bus.” (Dkt. No. 121 at 8). At the oral hearing, Defendants stated that the language “among them”
`
`required the bus to be capable of connecting at least three devices. (Dkt. No. 137 at 31-32).
`
`
`
`12
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`12 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 13 of 48 PageID #: 3490
`
`
`
`At the oral hearing, Defendants agreed that the term “bus” was generally understood in
`
`the art. (Id. at 9). Defendants emphasized at the hearing that PUMA’s construction would allow
`
`devices to be indirectly coupled to a bus. Defendants asserted that PUMA’s construction would,
`
`thus, allow all the devices shown in the various figures to be “coupled” to a bus. (Id. at 12-13).
`
`Defendants assert that such an interpretation is an improper reading of “bus.” Defendants
`
`asserted that as shown in the figures and known in the art, various buses such as the PCI bus 170
`
`and ISA bus 198 are separate buses. (Id. at 11, 13, 28). Defendants assert that if “coupled” is
`
`used, the term must be “directly coupled.” (Id. at 30).
`
`
`
`PUMA offers various responses to Defendants’ assertions. As to whether a “bus” within
`
`the meaning of the Asserted Patents can contain a “second bus,” PUMA asserts that the relevant
`
`claims already contain the limitation “without requiring a second bus.” PUMA asserts that this
`
`limitation speaks for itself. (Dkt. No. 122 at 2). PUMA also asserts that Defendants’ proposal
`
`would import the “parallel” limitation into eight of the nine Asserted Patents, even though only
`
`two of the patents have claims excluding a second bus. (Id.).
`
`
`
`As to Cheney, PUMA asserts that Defendants have misread the file history. PUMA
`
`asserts that the Applicants were observing that the portion of the prior art identified by the
`
`Examiner “refers to the connections as interface line,” not a bus. (Id. (quoting Dkt. No. 121 Ex.
`
`11 at 6)). PUMA notes that in the subsequent Office Action, the Examiner disagreed with
`
`Applicants’ characterization and maintained that Cheney discloses a bus. (Id. at 2-3 (citing Dkt.
`
`No. 122 Ex. B at 2)). PUMA asserts that the Applicants did not reargue the “bus” issue during
`
`the subsequent prosecution but rather secured allowance of the claims on other grounds. (Id. at
`
`3).
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`13 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 14 of 48 PageID #: 3491
`
`Analysis
`
`
`
`The parties do not dispute that the term “bus” is well-known in the art. Defendants seek a
`
`construction that adds “parallel” and “broadcast among them” to its well-known meaning. The
`
`Court rejects Defendants’ proposed construction because including “parallel” and “broadcast
`
`among them” does not add clarity to the construction and is not supported by the intrinsic
`
`evidence. However, the Court also rejects PUMA’s proposed construction because the
`
`construction is broader than what is disclosed in the specification.
`
`Fundamentally, Defendants argue that a “bus” must be one set of associated signal lines
`
`without intervening modules or components. Defendants assert that if there are intervening
`
`components on a “bus,” the “bus” must be considered a sequence or series of multiple “buses.”
`
`Defendants’ main objection at the hearing with regard to the term “bus” was not directed toward
`
`the meaning of “bus.” Rather, Defendants focused on the extent to which other devices may be
`
`directly or indirectly “coupled” to a “bus.”
`
`
`
`Defendants’ addition of the words “parallel” and “broadcast” do not show that a “bus”
`
`must be unbroken by intervening modules or components. The Court agrees with PUMA that the
`
`words “parallel” and “broadcast” have multiple meanings in the art. For example, “serial” and
`
`“parallel” buses also have well-known meanings that are different than the “parallel” meaning
`
`sought by Defendants. Defendants’ “broadcast” requirement would exclude buses such as MBus
`
`discussed by PUMA. Defendants have not established, in the intrinsic record, that the ordinary
`
`meaning of “bus” has been disavowed or disclaimed, such that the terms “parallel” and
`
`“broadcast” should be incorporated into the construction of “bus.”
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`14 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 15 of 48 PageID #: 3492
`
`Furthermore, Defendants’ focus on the term “coupled” does not change the meaning of
`
`the term “bus.” For example, the ’789 Patent Figure 2 provides that the decoder/encoder 45 is
`
`“coupled to the memory 50 through devices, typically a bus 70.” ’789 Patent 6:29-30. Figure 2
`
`shows that the decoder 45 is indirectly coupled to the memory 50 through an intervening
`
`memory interface 48 and a bus 70. The meaning of the term “bus” does not change just because
`
`the memory interface 48 and bus 70 separate the decoder 45 and the memory 50. Defendants’
`
`arguments appear directed toward the meaning of “coupled” not “bus.”
`
`To the extent that Defendants assert that a “bus” cannot be a point-to-point connection
`
`between two devices (Dkt. No. 121 at 2, 6-8), Defendants’ proposed construction of “broadcast
`
`among them” does not include such a limitation. An ordinary reading of Defendants’
`
`construction would encompass point-to-point connections between two devices.2
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ argument that a “bus” excludes a point-to-point connection
`
`between two devices is unsupported by the intrinsic evidence. Defendants’ argument relies on
`
`the Applicants’ prosecution history statements regarding the Cheney reference. But Cheney
`
`describes a point-to-point connection between two devices as buses. It states: “[t]he interface
`
`between the memory management unit 600 and the memory 601 includes an address bus, 221, a
`
`bidirectional data bus, 223, and a control bus 225.” (Dkt. No. 121 Ex. 9 (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,576,765) at 7:35-37, Figure 4). Moreover, the statements made by the Applicants regarding
`
`Cheney were directed toward a portion of the specification that referenced “interface 221, 223,
`
`225.” (Id. at 10:29-30). It is clear that elsewhere, Cheney referred to such connections as a “bus.”
`
`(Id. 7:35-37).
`
`
`2 Defendants assert that “among them” negates a point to point connection. The Court does not
`find such language so limiting.
`
`
`
`15
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`15 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 16 of 48 PageID #: 3493
`
`In any event, the Examiner did not accept the Applicants’ “interface” argument during
`
`prosecution, and the Applicants did not subsequently rely on that argument to secure allowance
`
`of the claims. In the context of the prosecution history as a whole, “bus” was not redefined from
`
`its ordinary meaning to exclude point-to-point connections. The Court’s construction adopted
`
`below concludes with “between them.” Such language does not prohibit a point-to-point
`
`connection and does not require the bus to be coupled to at least three devices
`
`
`
`PUMA’s construction, however, is also problematic because it could be interpreted to
`
`encompass more than what the intrinsic record would teach to be a “bus.” For example, the
`
`patents illustrate an example of two buses: a PCI bus 170 and an ISA bus 198. ’789 Patent Figure
`
`1c. PUMA acknowledges that each of these buses would be considered to be a separate bus. At
`
`the oral hearing, PUMA also unequivocally stated that a PCI bus 170 and an ISA bus 198 were
`
`two separate buses. (Dkt. No. 137 at 22, 24-25). Further, PUMA stated that one skilled in the art
`
`would recognize the buses were separate. (Id.). Also, in prosecution, the Applicants
`
`distinguished the memory bus 108 and the PCI bus 120 of Lambrecht as being two separate
`
`buses.
`
`However, PUMA’s construction merely defines a “bus” as “a set of signal lines.” If one
`
`defined the “bus” as a “set of signal lines,” contrary to PUMA’s statements at the hearing and
`
`contrary to the Applicants’ statements during prosecution, the PCI bus 170 and the ISA bus 198
`
`could be considered one “set of signal lines” and argued to form one “bus.” Similarly, the two
`
`busses in Lambrecht, the memory bus 108 lines and the PCI bus 120 lines, could also be
`
`considered to be one “bus.” In the context of the patent disclosure, the prosecution history
`
`arguments made to distinguish Lambrecht, and the acknowledgements made by PUMA during
`
`the oral hearing, such an interpretation of “bus” is not correct.
`
`
`
`16
`
`PUMA Exhibit 2008
`Apple v. PUMA, IPR2016-01134
`16 of 48
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00690-RSP Document 155 Filed 07/30/15 Page 17 of 48 PageID #: 3494
`
`As shown in the patents and the prosecution history, the “set of signal lines” is not just
`
`any lines chosen randomly to form “a set.” Rather, the “set” is a set of associated lines, for
`
`example the PCI bus lines, ISA bus lines, or memory bus lines, each being a separate set. The
`
`Court’s construction requires