Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2464
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. 2:15-cv-00621
`
`Jury Trial Requested
`
`
`
`
`
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY
`ARCHITECTURE LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Docket Control Order and P.R. 4-3, Plaintiff Parthenon Unified
`
`Memory Architecture LLC (“PUMA”) and Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) hereby submit their
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement.
`
`I.
`
`CONSTRUCTION OF CLAIM TERMS ON WHICH THE PARTIES AGREE
`
`The parties are in agreement on the following terms. Additionally, for the agreed
`
`constructions of “bus,” “algorithmically translate the noncontiguous addresses to the contiguous
`
`addresses,” and the “arbiter” terms, the parties are in agreement with the Court’s prior
`
`constructions of these specific terms and request that the Court incorporate by reference its
`
`reasoning for those terms as fully stated in the Court’s claim construction opinions in Case No.
`
`2:14-cv-690 (Dkt. 155), Case No. 2:14-cv-902 (Dkt. 902) and Case No. 2:15-cv-225 (Dkt. 80) in
`
`any claim construction opinion issued in the present case.
`
`Term(s)
`
`Agreed Construction
`
`“bus”
`’789 patent: claims 1, 13
`’368 patent: claims 1, 5, 7, 13, 19, 20, 23
`
`“a signal line or set of associated signal lines
`to which a number of devices are coupled and
`over which information may be transferred
`between them”
`
` 
`
`1
`
`Apple Inc. v. Parthenon
`Ex. 1011 / Page 1 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2465
`
`’045 patent: claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 15
`’753 patent: claims 1, 7
`
`“algorithmically translate the noncontiguous
`addresses to the contiguous addresses”
`’464 patent: claims 7, 22
`
`“convert the noncontiguous addresses to the
`contiguous addresses according to at least one
`mathematical operation”
`
`“screen and its circuitry”
`
`
`“an adapter that processes images for a
`display device”
`
`
`“circuitry that uses a priority scheme to
`determine which requesting device will gain
`access”
`
`
`“display device”
`’368 patent: claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21
`’045 patent: claims 1, 4-6, 12, 13
`’753 patent: claims 1, 7
`
`“display adapter”
`’368 patent: claims 2, 3
`’045 patent: claim 2
`’753 patent: claim 3
`
`“arbiter”
`“arbitration circuit”
`“memory arbiter”
`“arbiter circuit”
`’789 patent: claims 1, 19
`’368 patent: claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 19, 20, 23
`’045 patent: claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 12, 15
`’753 patent: claims 1, 7
`
`
`II.
`
`DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS/PHRASES
`
`The parties’ proposed construction for each disputed term or phrase is set forth in Appendix
`
`A. PUMA’s identification of evidence is set forth in Appendix B and Apple’s identification of
`
`evidence is set forth in Appendix C.
`
`III. ANTICIPATED LENGTH OF TIME FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
` 
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 2 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2466
`
`The Claim Construction Hearing is set to begin at 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before
`
`Judge Payne on April 18, 2016. The parties anticipate that the Claim Construction hearing in this
`
`matter will take no more than 3 hours total.
`
`IV. ANTICIPATED WITNESSES AT THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`The parties do not anticipate calling any witnesses at the claim construction hearing.
`
`V.
`
`OTHER ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED AT A PREHEARING CONFERENCE
`PRIOR TO CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING
`
`At this time, the parties are not aware of any other issues that might be appropriately
`
`addressed at a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing.
`
`
`Dated: February 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael McBride
`Demetrios Anaipakos
`Texas Bar No. 00793258
`danaipakos@azalaw.com
`Amir Alavi
`Texas Bar No. 00793239
`aalavi@azalaw.com
`Michael McBride
`Texas Bar No. 24065700
`mmcbride@azalaw.com
`Alisa A. Lipski
`Texas Bar No. 24041345
`alipski@azalaw.com
`Justin Chen
`Texas Bar No. 24074204
`jchen@azalaw.com
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI & MENSING P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: 713-655-1101
`Facsimile: 713-655-0062
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 00794818
`jw@wsfirm.com
`
` 
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 3 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2467
`
`
`
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`P.O. Box 1231
`Longview, TX 75606-1231
`Telephone: 909-757-6400
`Facsimile: 909-757-2323
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`PARTHENON UNIFIED MEMORY
`ARCHITECTURE LLC
`
`
`/s/ Marc Belloli
`Margaret Elizabeth Day
`(CA Bar No. 177125)
`Admitted to Practice
`David L. Alberti (pro hac vice)
`Marc Belloli (pro hac vice)
`Nickolas Bohl
`FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI &
`THOMPSON LP
`1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 618.4360
`Facsimile: (650) 618.4368
`eday@feinday.com
`dalberti@feinday.com
`nbohl@feinday.com
`Michael E. Jones (SBN: 10929400)
`Patrick C. Clutter (SBN: 2403634)
`POTTER MINTON, PC
`110 North College, Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Tel: 903-597-8311
`Fax: 903-593-0846
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`patrickclutter@potterminton.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE, INC.
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 4 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2468
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on February 16, 2016.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael McBride
`
`
`
` 
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 5 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 2469
`Case 2:l5—cv—00621—JRG—RSP Document 94-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 5 Page|D #: 2469
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`Ex.1011IPage 6 of 28
`
`          
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 6 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 2470
`APPENDIX A – THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH CLAIM TERM
`
`Term(s)
`
`PUMA’s Construction
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`“bus with a bandwidth equal to or
`greater than the required bandwidth to
`operate in real time.”
`
`Indefinite.
`
`“fast enough to keep up with an input
`data stream”
`
`Indefinite.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Alternative constructions:
`
`a. “directly or indirectly connectable to
`the memory/main memory/system
`memory using no more than one bus”
`
`
`1
`
`“fast bus”
`’368 patent: claim 7
`’045 patent: claim 4
`a. “in real time” / “real time operation” /
`“operate in real time”
`
`’789 patent: claims 1, 13
`
`
`
`b. “the bus having a sufficient
`bandwidth to enable the decoder to
`access the memory and operate in real
`time when the first device
`simultaneously accesses the bus"
`
`‘789 patent: claim 1
`
`
`
`c. “wherein the bus has a bandwidth of
`at least twice the bandwidth required for
`the decoder to operate in real time”
`
`‘789 patent: claim 13
`
`a. “coupleable to a main memory” /
`“coupleable to a memory” /
`
`‘045 patent: claims 1, 4, 12
`
`
`
`No.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 7 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 2471
`APPENDIX A – THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH CLAIM TERM
`
`Apple’s Construction
`b. “directly or indirectly connected to the
`memory/main memory/system memory
`using no more than one bus”
`
`c. “directly or indirectly connecting to
`the memory using no more than one bus”
`
`
`
`PUMA’s Construction
`a. “directly or indirectly connectable
`to a memory/main memory”
`
`
`b. “directly or indirectly connected to
`a memory/main memory”
`
`
`c. “directly or indirectly connecting to
`a memory/main memory”
`
`Term(s)
`‘753 patent: claim 7
`
`b. “coupled to a memory” “coupled to
`the memory” / “coupled to the main
`memory” / “coupled to a system
`memory”
`‘789 patent: claims 1
`‘368 patent: claims 1, 7, 13, 20
`‘045 patent: claims 1, 4, 5
`‘753 patent: claims 1
`
`c. “coupling to the memory”
`‘789 patent: claim 1
`
`
`
`No.
`
`4.
`
`“control circuit”
`’464 patent: claims 1, 2, 7-13, 16-24, 32
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`a. “directly supplied”
`’368 patent: claim 3
`
`b. “directly supplies”
`’368 patent: claims 14, 21
`’045 patent: claims 2, 6, 13
`’753 patent: claim 3
`
`5.
`
`
`
`a. “supplied without being stored in
`main memory for purposes of
`decoding subsequent images”
`
`b. “supplies without being stored in
`main memory for purposes of
`decoding subsequent images”
`
`2
`
`“an electronic control device that is
`separate from the CPU or processor and
`that interacts with the operating system”
`
`a. “the images directly supplied to the
`display adapter” means “images that are
`provided from the decoder to the display
`adaptor without being stored in the main
`memory”
`b. the decoder directly supplies a display
`adapter [device] with an image” means
`“an image is provided from the decoder
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 8 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 2472
`APPENDIX A – THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH CLAIM TERM
`
`Term(s)
`
`PUMA’s Construction
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Apple’s Construction
`to the display adaptor [device] without
`being stored in the main memory”
`“a device or boundary that attaches to the
`bus to communicate information”
`
`
`
`
`No.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`“bus interfaces coupled to the fast bus”
`’368 patent: claim 7
`’045 patent: claim 4
`
`“wherein the control circuit translates
`the requested contiguous addresses of
`the block of memory to requested
`noncontiguous addresses”
`’464 patent: claim 1
`
`“the second bus interface of the central
`processing circuit” and “the first bus
`interface of the central processing
`circuit”
`’368 patent: claim 7
`’045 patent claim 4
`a. “selectively providing access … to
`the memory”
`
`‘789 patent: claim 1
`
`b. “controlling the access to said main
`memory”
`
`‘368 patent: claim 1
`’045 patent: claim 1
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Indefinite.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`Indefinite.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“allowing/allow only one device to
`access the [main/system] memory at a
`time”
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 9 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-1 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 2473
`APPENDIX A – THE PARTIES’ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH CLAIM TERM
`
`No.
`
`Term(s)
`
`PUMA’s Construction
`
`Apple’s Construction
`
`
`c. “control access to the main memory” /
`“control access to the memory”
`
`‘753 patent: claim 1, 7
`
`d. “controlling the access to the system
`memory”/ “control access to the system
`memory”
`
`‘368 patent: claim 13
`’045 patent: claim 5
`“memory interface”
`’789 patent: claim 1
`’753 patent: claim 7
`
`10.
`
`No construction necessary.
`
`“a device or boundary that attaches to a
`memory bus to communicate
`information”
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 10 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-2 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2474
`Case 2:l5—cv—00621—JRG—RSP Document 94-2 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 4 Page|D #: 2474
`
`APPENDIX B
`
`APPENDIX B
`
`Ex. 1011 IPage 11 of 28
`
`          
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 11 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-2 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2475
`
`Appendix B
`
`For purposes of claim construction, including the assertions of indefiniteness raised by the
`
`Defendants, PUMA intends to rely upon the following sources of intrinsic and extrinsic evidence:
`
`1.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,321,368: 2:28-5:4; 5:8-6:6; 6:41-11:34; Figs. 1-7 and all claims.
`
`PUMA similarly intends to rely upon the corresponding passages and figures found in the
`
`specifications for the related asserted patents.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,960,464: 1:25-3:63; 8:4-8:57; Figs. 1-4 and all claims.
`
`The court’s claim construction Memorandum Opinion and Order
`
`in
`
`STMicroelectronics, N.V. v. Motorola Inc., No. 4:03-CV-276 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2004) (Dkt. No.
`
`177) and all related claim construction briefing, appendices, and material cited therein, including
`
`the IEEE Standard Dictionary of Elec. & Elecs. Terms (6th ed. 1996) and the Declaration of Dr.
`
`Omid E. Kia submitted by STMicroelectronics.
`
`4.
`
`The extrinsic and intrinsic evidence cited in the claim construction briefing of either
`
`PUMA or the Defendants in related Case Nos. 2:14-cv-690, 2:14-cv-902 and 2:15-cv-225 and any
`
`claim construction order or preliminary claim construction order of the Court in that action.
`
`5.
`
`Modern Dictionary of Electronics, Sixth Edition 1997, at 508; McGraw-Hill
`
`Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, Sixth Edition 2003, at 1093; New International
`
`Webster’s Pocket Computer Dictionary of the English Language, 1997, at 103; Dictionary of
`
`Computer and Science Engineering and Technology, 2001, at 251;
`
`6.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Bill Mangione-Smith. Dr. Mangione-smith will offer his
`
`opinion on the level of ordinary skill in the art as it relates to the constructions of the below claim
`
`terms (to the extent the construction of a claim term is still in dispute by the parties) and the
`
`consistency of the proposed constructions with the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 12 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-2 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2476
`
`a. “fast bus” – Dr. Mangione-Smith may opine on the meaning of this term to a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art and how PUMA’s proposed construction is consistent
`
`with the intrinsic evidence. With respect to indefiniteness, Dr. Mangione-Smith
`
`may opine on the definiteness of the term as to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and rebut any contrary opinions from defendants’ declarant.
`
`b. “real time” and related terms – Dr. Mangione-Smith may opine on the meaning of
`
`this term to a person of ordinary skill in the art and how PUMA’s proposed
`
`construction is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the extrinsic evidence
`
`identified above. With respect to indefiniteness, Dr. Mangione-Smith may opine
`
`on the definiteness of the term as to a person of ordinary skill in the art and rebut
`
`any contrary opinions from defendants’ declarant.
`
`c. “wherein the control circuit translates the requested contiguous addresses of the
`
`block of memory to requested noncontiguous addresses” – Dr. Mangione-Smith
`
`may opine on the meaning of this term to a person of ordinary skill in the art and
`
`how the plain and ordinary meaning of this term and any alternative construction
`
`proposed by PUMA is consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the extrinsic
`
`evidence identified above. With respect to indefiniteness, Dr. Mangione-Smith
`
`may opine on the definiteness of the term as to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`and rebut any contrary opinions from defendants’ declarant.
`
`d. “the second bus interface of the central processing circuit” / “the first bus interface
`
`of the central processing circuit” – Dr. Mangione-Smith may opine on the meaning
`
`of this term to a person of ordinary skill in the art and how the plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of this term and any alternative construction proposed by PUMA is
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 13 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-2 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2477
`
`consistent with the intrinsic evidence and the extrinsic evidence identified above.
`
`With respect to indefiniteness, Dr. Mangione-Smith may opine on the definiteness
`
`of the term as to a person of ordinary skill in the art and rebut any contrary opinions
`
`from defendants’ declarant.
`
`PUMA further reserves the right to rely upon any sources identified by the Defendants in
`
`accompanying Appendix C. 
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 14 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 2478
`Case 2:l5—cv—00621—JRG—RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 14 Page|D #: 2478
`
`APPENDIX C
`
`APPENDIX C
`
`Ex.1011IPage15 of 28
`
`          
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 15 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2479
`
`APPENDIX C – APPLE’S PROPOSED DISPUTED CONSTRUCTIONS WITH CITATIONS TO INTRINSIC
`AND EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE
`
`No.
`
`1.
`
`Claim Term or Phrase
`
`“fast bus”
`
`‘368 patent: claim 7
`
`‘045 patent: claim 4
`
`
`
`
`Intrinsic Evidence
`
`Extrinsic Evidence
`
`‘368 patent at Figs. 2-4, 7;
`5:8-45; 8:10-59; 9:5-10:48;
`11:3-13; 12:35-14:25.
`
`US Patent No. 8,681,164 File
`History at September 3, 2013
`Amendment (“In order to
`retrieve the multimedia data,
`Gulick’s PCI devices must
`communicate with the main
`memory using PCI bus 120,
`which is not a real time bus.
`Gulick at 5:29- 38. Instead,
`the PCI devices 142, 144, 146
`must obtain bus mastership,
`which consumes PCI
`cycles.”).)
`
`‘368 patent file history at
`Appellant’s Brief; Examiner’s
`Answer; Decision on Appeal;
`Notice of Allowability
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, and the PHOSITA’s
`understanding or lack thereof
`of the term “fast” as applied
`to the term “bus” including
`contradictory and ambiguous
`teachings of the term “real
`time” found in the intrinsic
`evidence, and/or to rebut any
`expert testimony presented by
`PUMA.
`
`Apple may also rely on the
`following references:
`
`IEEE Standard Glossary of
`Computer Hardware
`Terminology, IEEE, 1994
`p. 19
`Definition of “Bus”
`
`
`Apple’s Proposed
`Construction
`Indefinite.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 16 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 2480
`
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`
`Indefinite.
`
`2.
`
`a. “real time operation” /
`“operate in real time”
`
`’789 patent: claims 1, 13
`
`b. “the bus having a sufficient
`bandwidth to enable the
`decoder to access the memory
`and operate in real time when
`the first device
`simultaneously accesses the
`bus"
`
`‘789 patent at 3:21-51; 6:29-
`40; 6:41-62; 6:63-7:4; 7:49-
`54; 8:53-62; 9:16-25; 10:28-
`31; 10:50-54; 11:28- 42;
`claims 1, 13
`
`‘368 patent at Figs. 2-4, 7;
`5:8-45; 8:10-59; 9:5-10:48;
`11:3-13; 12:35-14:25.
`
`US Patent No. 8,681,164 File
`History at September 3, 2013
`
`
`
`2
`
`Definition of “Bus-based
`architecture”
`
`Accelerated Graphics Port
`Interface Specification,
`Revision 1.0, Intel Corp,
`2/31/96
`Title, pp. 5, 103
`
`PCI System Architecture, 2nd
`edition, MindShare, 1994
`p. 29, 39
`
`VESA VL-Bus 2.0 Standard,
`11/1/93
`Title page
`
`INTEL 430VX PCISET, Intel
`Corp., 1996
`p. 1, 2, 50
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, and the PHOSITA’s
`understanding or lack thereof
`of the phrase “real time”
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 17 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 2481
`
`based on those teachings,
`including contradictory
`teachings of the term “real
`time” found in the intrinsic
`evidence.
`
`PCI Specification, revision
`2.1s, 1995
`
`
`
`Amendment (“In order to
`retrieve the multimedia data,
`Gulick’s PCI devices must
`communicate with the main
`memory using PCI bus 120,
`which is not a real time bus.
`Gulick at 5:29- 38. Instead,
`the PCI devices 142, 144, 146
`must obtain bus mastership,
`which consumes PCI
`cycles.”).)
`
`‘789 patent file history at
`Amendment of March 3, 1998
`and related Office action.
`
`‘368 patent file history at
`Appellant’s Brief; Examiner’s
`Answer; Decision on Appeal;
`Notice of Allowability
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`
`
`‘789 patent: claim 1
`
`c. "wherein the bus has a
`bandwidth of at least twice
`the bandwidth required for the
`decoder to operate in real
`time"
`
`‘789 patent: claim 13
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 18 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 2482
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, and the PHOSITA’s
`understanding of the phrases
`“coupleable”, “coupled” and
`“coupling” as applied to the
`memory structures set forth in
`the patents in view of these
`teachings, and/or to rebut any
`expert testimony presented by
`PUMA.
`
`
`
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`‘789 patent at Abstract; 2:51-
`53, 2:66- 3:5, 3:19-20, 3:54-
`59, 6:29-32, 6:63-67, 8:40-44,
`8:53-59, 8:63-9:4, 9:16-23,
`9:26-29; claim 1 and Figs. 2-
`4.
`
`‘368 patent at Abstract; Figs.
`2-7; 2:51-59; 5:8-18; 6:41-
`8:42; 9:66-10:44; 12:35-
`14:65.
`
`‘368 patent file history at
`Amendment of May 8, 2003
`and related Office action;
`Amendment of December 1,
`2003 and related Office
`action; US. Pat. No.
`5,5765,765 of Cheney;
`Amendment of July 9, 2004
`and related Office action;
`Appellant’s Brief; Examiner’s
`Answer; Decision on Appeal;
`Amendment of August 21,
`2006; Notice of Allowability.
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`
`a. Directly or indirectly
`connectable to the
`memory/main
`memory/system memory
`using no more than one bus.
`
`b. Directly or indirectly
`connected to the
`memory/main
`memory/system memory
`using no more than one bus.
`
`c. Directly or indirectly
`connecting to the memory
`using no more than one bus.
`
`3.
`
`a. “coupleable to a main
`memory” / “coupleable to a
`memory” /
`
`‘045 patent: claims 1, 4, 12
`
`‘753 patent: claim 7
`
`b. “coupled to a memory”
`“coupled to the memory” /
`“coupled to the main
`memory” / “coupled to a
`system memory”
`
`‘789 patent: claims 1
`
`‘368 patent: claims 1, 7, 13,
`20
`
`‘045 patent: claims 1, 4, 5
`
`‘753 patent: claims 1
`
`c. “coupling to the memory”
`
`‘789 patent: claim 1
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 19 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 2483
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, and the PHOSITA’s
`understanding of the term
`“control circuit” as used in the
`’464 patent in view of these
`teachings, and/or to rebut any
`expert testimony presented by
`PUMA.
`
`
`
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`’464 patent at Figure 1, Figure
`2 (item 120), Figure 3 and
`associated disclosure.
`’464 patent at 3:37-48; 4:42-
`54; 7:40-50; 8:35-44; 9:2-30;
`language of claims 1, 2, 7-13,
`16-24, 32.
`
`’464 patent File history at
`December 29, 1998
`Amendment.
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`
`4.
`
`“control circuit”
`
`‘464 patent: claims 1, 2, 7-13,
`16-24, 32
`
`An electronic control device
`that is separate from the CPU
`or processor and that interacts
`with the operating system
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 20 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 2484
`
`5.
`
`a. “directly supplied”
`
`’368 patent: claim 3
`
`b. “directly supplies”
`
`’368 patent: claims 14, 21
`
`’045 patent: claims 2, 6, 13
`
`’753 patent: claim 3
`
`a. the images directly supplied
`to the display adapter” means
`“images that are provided
`from the decoder to the
`display adaptor without being
`stored in the main memory
`
`b. the decoder directly
`supplies a display adapter
`[device] with an image”
`means “an image is provided
`from the decoder to the
`display adaptor [device]
`without being stored in the
`main memory /
`
`
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`‘368 patent: claims 2, 3, 14,
`21; Fig. 4; 10:35-11:13;
`12:23-34.
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, the PHOSITA’s
`understanding of the phrases
`“directly supplies” / “directly
`supplied” in the context of the
`operation of the invention and
`supply of images to the
`display adapter in the ’368
`and ’753 patents and/or to
`rebut any expert testimony
`presented by PUMA.
`
`Apple may also rely on the
`following references:
`
`Webster’s New World
`Dictionary, 2nd College Ed.,
`Simon and Schuster, Inc.,
`1982
`p. 399 Definition of “direct”
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 21 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 2485
`
`6.
`
`“bus interface”
`
`‘368 patent: claim 7(cid:31)
`‘045 patent: claim 4
`
`
`a device or boundary
`that attaches to the bus to
`communicate information
`
`
`‘368 patent at claim 7; Figs.
`1c, 3, 6, 7; 2:62-3:8, 9:66-
`10:25; 12:5-43
`
`‘045 patent at claim 4
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, the PHOSITA’s
`understanding or lack thereof
`of the phrase “bus interface”
`based on those teachings,
`and/or to rebut any expert
`testimony presented by
`PUMA.
`
`Apple may also rely on the
`following references:
`
`STi3500A Datasheet
`- (incorporated by reference to
`the ‘368 patent)
`- p. 17-18
`
`ISA System Architecture, 3rd
`Edition, Addison-Wesley,
`1995
`p. 335, 337
`
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of
`Electrical and Electronics
`Terms, 6th Edition, ANSI, 96
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 22 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 2486
`
`p. 118
`Definition of “bus interface
`unit”
`pp. 540-541
`Definition of “interface unit”
`
`M. Morris Mano, Computer
`System Architecture, 2nd
`Edition, Prentice-Hall, 1982
`pp. 407-408
`
`Merriam-Webster’s
`Collegiate Dictionary, 10th
`Ed., Merriam-Webster, Inc.,
`1993
`p. 610 Definition of
`“interface”
`
`Webster’s New World
`Dictionary, 2nd College Ed.,
`Simon and Schuster, Inc.,
`1982
`p. 734 Definition of
`“interface”
`
`
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`
`Indefinite.
`
`7.
`
`“wherein the control circuit
`translates the requested
`contiguous addresses of the
`block of memory to requested
`noncontiguous addresses”
`
`’464 patent: claim 1
`
`’464 patent at Figure 1, Figure
`2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and
`associated disclosure.
`’464 patent at 3:37-48; 4:42-
`54; 6:63-7:50; 8:15-44;
`language of claim 1.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 23 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:
` 2487
`
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, the PHOSITA’s
`understanding or lack thereof
`of the phrase and/or to rebut
`any expert testimony
`presented by PUMA.
`
`
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), the teachings
`of the patent specifications
`and related technical
`concepts, and the PHOSITA’s
`understanding or lack thereof
`of these phrases, and/or to
`rebut any expert testimony
`presented by PUMA.
`
`
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`‘368 patent at claim 7; Figs.
`1c, 3, 6, 7; 2:62-3:8, 9:66-
`10:25; 12:5-43
`
`’045 patent: claim 4
`
`Apple may also rely on
`statements made by PUMA in
`support of its opposition to
`Inter Partes Review
`proceedings for the patents-
`in-suit; as well as Markman
`Briefing, Evidence and Orders
`in co-pending litigations filed
`by PUMA (e.g., PUMA v.
`HTC; PUMA v. ZTE, PUMA
`v. Samsung, etc.) and ST
`Microelectronics, Inc. v.
`Motorola, Inc.
`
`
`
`Indefinite.
`
`8.
`
`“the second bus interface of
`the central processing circuit”
`/ “the first bus interface of the
`central processing circuit”
`
`’368 patent: claim 7
`’045 patent: claim 4
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 24 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00621-JRG-RSP Document 94-3 Filed 02/16/16 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:
` 2488
`
`
`‘368 patent at Abstract, 13:6-
`53; claims 1, 5, 13
`
`‘789 patent at 3:61-4:11;
`9:42-11:42; Figure 2
`
`IPR2015-01500, Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary
`Response at pp. 30-33.
`
`IPR2015-01501, Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary
`Response at pp. 26-28.
`
`IPR2015-01501, Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary
`Response at pp. 28-30.
`
`IRP2105-01944, Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary
`Response at pp. 19-21.
`
`‘368 patent file history at
`Amendment of May 8, 2003
`and related Office action;
`Amendment of December 1,
`2003 and related Office
`action; US. Pat. No.
`5,5765,765 of Cheney;
`Amendment of July 9, 2004
`and related Office action;
`Appellant’s Brief; Examiner’s
`
`Apple may rely on the
`testimony of Dr. Donald
`Alpert as to the level of
`experience, knowledge, and
`skill typical of a person
`having ordinary skill in the art
`(“PHOSITA”), and the
`teachings of the patent
`specifications and related
`technical concepts, the
`PHOSITA’s understanding of
`how the patents teach access
`to memory is “controlled” or
`“selectively provided”, how
`PUMA has described and
`defined the claimed
`inventions through statements
`made during the Inter Partes
`Review proceedings, and/or to
`rebut any expert testimony
`presented by PUMA.
`
`Apple may also rely on the
`following references:
`
`IEEE Standard Dictionary of
`Electrical and Electronics
`Terms, Sixth Edition, 1996
`Page 43
`Definition of “Arbiter”
`Definition of “Arbitration”
`
`
`allowing/allow only one
`device to access the
`[main/system] memory at a
`time
`
`“selectively providing access
`… to the memory”
`
`‘789 patent: claim 1
`
`“controlling the access to said
`main memory”
`
`‘368 patent: claim 1
`’045 patent: claim 1
`
`“control access to the main
`memory” / “control access to
`the memory”
`
`‘753 patent: claim 1, 7
`
`“controlling the access to the
`system memory”/ “control
`access to the system memory”
`
`‘368 patent: claim 13
`’045 patent: claim 5
`
`
`
`9.
`
`
`
`10
`
`Ex. 1011 / Page 25 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-0062