UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`LIMESTONE MEMORY SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Patent No. 5,894,441
`Issue Date: Apr. 13, 1999
`Filed: Mar. 31, 1998
`Inventor: Shigeyuki Nakazawa
`Title: SEMICONDUCTOR MEMORY DEVICE WITH REDUNDANCY
`CIRCUIT
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-01567
`
`____________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page No.
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`RELATED MATTERS ................................................................................... 3 
`
`III.  THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE OF
`REDUNDANCIES BETWEEN THE SUPPORTING ART AND
`ARGUMENTS AND THE ‘094 PETITION, AND BECAUSE OF
`REDUNDANCIES WITHIN THE PETITION ITSELF ................................ 6 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion To Deny The
`Petition Because Arguments Related To Gallia Are Redundant
`To The Prior ‘094 Petition .................................................................... 6 
`
`The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion To Deny The
`Petition In Part Because Arguments Related To Gallia Are
`Redundant To Arguments Related To Horiguchi ............................... 17 
`
`IV.  SUMMARY OF THE ‘441 PATENT ........................................................... 20 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`The Inventions Disclosed In The ‘441 Patent ..................................... 20 
`
`Level Of Ordinary Skill In The Art ..................................................... 24 
`
`Claim Interpretation ............................................................................ 25 
`
`V. 
`
`THE PETITION FAILS TO ESTABLISH A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT APPLE WILL PREVAIL AS TO ANY OF
`THE GROUNDS ASSERTED AGAINST CLAIMS 6–12, 14, OR 15
`OF THE ‘441 PATENT ................................................................................. 25 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`Summary of Horiguchi (U.S. Patent No. 5,265,055) .......................... 28 
`
`Summary of Gallia (U.S. Patent No. 5,126,973) ................................ 31 
`
`Legal Standard ..................................................................................... 37 
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Claims 6–12, 14, and 15
`are Anticipated By Horiguchi ............................................................. 40 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`iii. 
`
`Illustrate How Horiguchi
`The Petition Fails To
`Discloses The Plurality Of Column Selection Lines,
`Including At Least A First Column Selection Line,
`Recited In Claim 6 .................................................................... 40 
`
`Illustrate How Horiguchi
`The Petition Fails To
`Discloses The Redundant Column Selection Line
`Recited In Claim 6 .................................................................... 44 
`
`Illustrate How Horiguchi
`The Petition Fails To
`Discloses The Second Column Selection Line, The
`Third Bit Line, And The Fourth Bit Line Recited In
`Claim 9 ...................................................................................... 45 
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Claims 6–7, 9, 11–12, and
`14–15 are Anticipated By Gallia Because The Petition Fails To
`Illustrate How Gallia Discloses The Column Redundancy
`Decoder Recited In Claim 6 ................................................................ 46 
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Claims 8 and 10 are
`Obvious Over The Combination of Gallia Horiguchi Because
`It Does Not Explain How And Why Horiguchi Would Be
`Combined With Gallia ........................................................................ 50 
`
`i. 
`
`ii. 
`
`The Petition Fails To Identify How Horiguchi Should Be
`Combined With Gallia To Arrive At The Limitations Of
`Claims 8 and 10 ......................................................................... 51 
`
`The Petition Fails To Establish That Claims 8 And 10
`Are Obvious Over Gallia In View Of Horiguchi,
`Because The Proposed Combination Would Render
`Gallia Inoperative ...................................................................... 52 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 57 
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Page No.
`
`Cases
`Activevideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 39
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00454 (Aug. 29, 2014) (Paper 12) ............................................... 39
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00506 (PTAB Dec. 10, 2014) (Paper 25) ............................... 8, 13
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ................................................................................... 17, 25
`Dow Chem. Co., In re,
`837 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 38
`EMC Corp. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC,
`Case IPR2013-00087 (PTAB June 5, 2013) (Paper 25) ....................................... 19
`Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc.,
`773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................... 37, 43, 45, 46, 50
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Techs. LLC,
`Case IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013) (Paper 15) ................................. 37, 47
`Google, Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc.,
`Case CBM2014-00170 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2015) (Paper 13) .............................. 8, 16
`Gordon, In re,
`733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................. 40
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) ................................................................................................. 38
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`Case IPR2012-00027 (PTAB June 11, 2013) (Paper 26) ..................................... 19
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`Case IPR2013-00324 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) (Paper 19) ...................................... 6
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ...................................................................................... 38, 39
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.,
`Case CBM2012-00003 (PTAB Oct. 25, 2012) (Paper 7) ............................. 18, 19
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys.,
`839 F.3d 1382, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 18855 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 20, 2016) ............ 17
`NTP, Inc., In re,
`654 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 40, 57
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l v. Wasica Fin. Gmbh,
`Case IPR2015-00272 (PTAB Jun. 1, 2015) (Paper 17) ......................................... 7
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 40
`Travelocity.com L.P. et al. v. Cronos Techs., LLC,
`Case CBM2014-00082 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2014) (paper 12) ............................ 26, 42
`TRW Auto. US LLC v. Magna Elecs. Inc.,
`IPR2014-00258, Paper 16 (PTAB June 26, 2014) ................ 27, 42, 45, 46, 49, 52
`UBE Maxwell Co., Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC,
`Case IPR2015-01511 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2016) (Paper 10) ............................... 7, 8, 13
`Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`Case IPR2014-00506 (PTAB July 7, 2014) (Paper 17) .................................. 7, 13
`Vivid Techs. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc.,
`200 F.3d 795 (Fed. Cir. 1999) .............................................................................. 25
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00054 (PTAB July 13, 2013) (Paper 16) ..................................... 26
`Wowza Media Sys., LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00054 (PTAB Apr. 8, 2013) (Paper 12) ....................................... 27
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00454 (PTAB Sep. 25, 2013) (Paper 12) ....................................... 8
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 ........................................................................................... 12, 13, 37
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .......................................................................................................... 3
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ......................................................................................................6, 8
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 41.65 ..................................................................................................... 27
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100 ................................................................................................... 25
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ................................................................................................... 26
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.22 ..................................................................................................... 26
`Other Authorities
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) .................................................................. 6
`Office Trial Practice Guide,
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................ 25, 26
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT NO. TITLE
`1001
`Declaration of Dr. Pinaki Mazumder
`1002
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Pinaki Mazumder
`1003
`U.S. Patent No. 5,894,441
`1004
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 5,894,441
`1005
`U.S. Patent No. 5,265,055 to Horiguchi
`1006
`U.S. Patent No. 5,126,973 to Gallia
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00094, Petition for Inter
`1007
`Partes Review filed October 27, 2015
`1008
`U.S. Patent No. 5,270,975 to McAdams
`1009
`Japanese Patent Appl. No. H06-052696 to Minami
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00094, Patent Owner’s
`1010
`Preliminary Response filed January 27, 2016
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2016-00094, Decision Denying
`Institution filed April 12, 2016
`U.S. Patent No. 5,956,285 to Watanabe
`Masashi Horiguchi et al., A Flexible Redundancy Technique for
`High-Density DRAMs,
`IEEE JOURNAL OF SOLID-STATE
`CIRCUITS, Vol. 26, No. 1, Jan. 1991, at 12-17
`U.S. Patent No. 5,267,214 to Fujishima
`U.S. Patent No. 5,349,556 to Lee
`U.S. Patent No. 5,355,339 to Oh
`U.S. Patent No. 5,359,560 to Suh
`U.S. Patent No. 5,798,974 to Yamagata
`U.S. Patent No. 5,808,948 to Kim
`Masashi Horiguchi, Redundancy Techniques for High-Density
`DRAMs,
`INNOVATIVE
`SYSTEMS
`IN
`SILICON
`CONFERENCE, Oct. 1997, at 22-29
`Masashi Horiguchi et al., NANOSCALE MEMORY REPAIR
`(Springer 2011)
`Robert T. Smith et al., Laser Programmable Redundancy and
`Yield Improvement in a 64 K DRAM, IEEE JOURNAL OF
`SOLID-STATE CIRCUITS, VOL. SC-16, NO. 5, Oct. 1981, at
`506-14
`Limestone Memory Sys. LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
`01274, Dkt. No. 52 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) (Order Granting
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`1015
`1016
`1017
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`2001
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`2002
`
`Motions to Stay Cases Pending Inter Partes Review)
`Limestone Memory Sys. LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
`01274, Dkt. No. 58 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2016) (Joint Status
`Report)
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Limestone Memory Systems LLC (“LMS”) respectfully
`
`submits this Preliminary Response in accord with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.107, responding to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (“the Petition”) filed
`
`by Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Petitioner”) regarding claims 6–15 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,894,441 (“the ‘441 patent”).1
`
`The Petition alleges three separate grounds of invalidity, but at critical
`
`junctions relating to each ground of invalidity the Petition fails to explain the basis
`
`for its grounds of invalidity or offers nothing more than attorney argument.
`
`Because the burden is on the Petitioner to establish that the ‘441 patent is
`
`reasonably likely to be invalid, neither the Patent Owner nor the Board should have
`
`
`1 Apple concurrently filed another petition for inter partes review, seeking to
`
`invalidate claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,181 (“the ‘181 patent”). See IPR2016-
`
`01561. The ‘181 patent and the ‘441 patent are at issue in co-pending litigation
`
`between the parties, Limestone Memory Sys. LLC v. Apple Inc., 8:15-cv-01274
`
`(C.D. Cal.) (“the Apple litigation”). The Apple litigation, along with multiple
`
`coordinated suits involving other defendants, have been stayed pending the
`
`outcome of the Board’s decisions on institution in these IPRs. (See Ex. 2001; Ex.
`
`2002).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`to parse the references and seek out evidence that might support the allegations in a
`
`Petition for inter partes review. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c). In short, the Board
`
`should rely on the Petition as the storehouse of best supporting evidence of
`
`invalidity. Because the Petition does not identify adequate supporting evidence of
`
`invalidity for at least one limitation of independent claim 6 under each ground of
`
`invalidity, the Board should deny the Petition as to each claim and each ground of
`
`invalidity. The Petition similarly fails to provide supporting evidence of invalidity
`
`for several dependent claims, which is a separate basis for denying the Petition as
`
`to those claims.
`
`Additionally, and alternatively, the Board should deny the Petition because it
`
`relies on arguments and prior art that are substantially the same as were asserted
`
`previously in IPR2016-00094 in an IPR petition filed by Micron Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“the ‘094 petition”). The Board denied the ‘094 petition as to claims 6–15 after
`
`reviewing LMS’s preliminary response. Four months later, applying the teachings
`
`of the Board’s institution decision, Apple filed the instant Petition. The Petition
`
`asserts grounds of invalidity predicated on U.S. Patent No. 5,126,973 to Gallia
`
`(hereinafter “Gallia”), which has substantially the same disclosure as U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,270,975 to McAdams (hereinafter “McAdams”), which was the primary
`
`reference relied upon in the ‘094 petition. In addition, the Petition itself cites
`
`redundant grounds based on Gallia and alternatively based on U.S. Patent No.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`5,265,055 to Horiguchi (hereinafter “Horiguchi”), which is not materially different
`
`from Gallia. The Board should deny the Petition and remove this duplicative cloud
`
`from Patent Owner’s rights.
`
`II. RELATED MATTERS
`
`LMS filed patent infringement lawsuits against Micron Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“MTI”) and seven of its device-manufacturing customers on February 17, 2015
`
`(“the MTI litigation”). Limestone Memory Sys. LLC v. Micron Tech. Inc. et al.,
`
`8:15-cv-00278 (C.D. Cal.). The MTI litigation asserted five patents collectively
`
`against one or more of the defendants.2 Six months later, on August 10, 2015, LMS
`
`filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. (“the Apple litigation”),
`
`which is also one of MTI’s device-manufacturing customers. Limestone Memory
`
`Sys. LLC v. Apple Inc., 8:15-cv-01274 (C.D. Cal.). LMS understands that MTI, as
`
`the manufacturer of the accused chips, is indemnifying Apple and each of the other
`
`defendants in the MTI litigation.3 The Apple litigation asserts four of the same five
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,504; 5,894,441; 5,943,260; 6,233,181 and 6,697,296.
`
`3 LMS reserves the right to assert that the Petition is time-barred under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b), to the extent that evidence of these or other facts establish that Apple and
`
`Micron are in privity under that statute.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`patents that LMS asserted previously asserted against MTI.4 LMS served Apple
`
`with a copy of the complaint in that lawsuit two days later, on August 12, 2015.
`
`Two months after LMS filed the Apple lawsuit, on October 27, 2015, MTI
`
`filed five petitions for inter partes review of the patents asserted against itself and
`
`its device-manufacturing customers (“the MTI petitions”). Cases IPR2016-00093–
`
`IPR2016-00097. The Court in the MTI litigation ordered each of the cases filed by
`
`LMS to be stayed, including the Apple litigation. (Ex. 2001.) LMS filed
`
`preliminary responses in four of those IPR cases. In decisions on institution, the
`
`Board denied MTI’s petitions wholly or in part on three of the five asserted
`
`patents.5
`
`
`4 U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,504; 5,894,441; 6,233,181 and 6,697,296.
`
`5 The table below details the claims asserted and the current status of the claims:
`
`Patent No. Asserted
`Claim
`5,805,504 1–2
`
`5,894,441 6–12,
`14, and
`15
`5,943,260 1–4
`
`
`
`
`
`Results of the MTI IPR Petitions
`
`IPR2015-00093: Board denied MTI’s
`petition and no trial was instituted.
`IPR2015-00094: Board denied MTI’s
`petition as to claims 6–15. No trial was
`instituted.
`IPR2015-00095: Board instituted trial on
`claims 1–4. LMS subsequently
`disclaimed all claims of the ‘260 patent
`and accepted adverse judgment.
`
`Live Asserted
`Claims
`1–2
`
`6–12, 14, and
`15
`
`–
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`On August 12, 2016, exactly one year after being served with the complaint
`
`in the Apple lawsuit, Apple filed the instant Petition along with a separate petition
`
`asserting invalidity of claims 1–3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,233,181 (“the ‘181
`
`patent”) (see IPR2016-01561). The MTI litigation and the Apple litigation remain
`
`stayed, meaning that the MTI litigation and the Apple litigation has been at a
`
`standstill since MTI filed its petitions for IPR in October, 2015. (Ex. 2002.) By
`
`waiting until the last possible day to file the Petition, Apple has maximized the
`
`delay both for the MTI litigation and the Apple litigation.
`
`
`3
`6,233,181 1–4, and
`IPR2015-00096: Board denied MTI’s
`6
`petition as to claims 3 and 5 and instituted
`trial on claims 1–2, 4, and 6. LMS
`subsequently disclaimed claims 1–2, 4,
`and 6 and accepted adverse judgment as
`to those claims.
`IPR2015-00097: Board instituted trial on
`claims 17–20 only. LMS subsequently
`disclaimed claims 17–20 and accepted
`adverse judgment as to those claims.
`
`13–15
`
`6,697,296 13–15,
`and 17–
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`III. THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE OF
`REDUNDANCIES BETWEEN THE SUPPORTING ART AND
`ARGUMENTS AND THE ‘094 PETITION, AND BECAUSE OF
`REDUNDANCIES WITHIN THE PETITION ITSELF
`
`A. The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion To Deny The Petition
`Because Arguments Related To Gallia Are Redundant To The
`Prior ‘094 Petition
`
`Institution of inter partes review is discretionary, and the Board’s decision
`
`to do so “may take into account whether, and reject the petition or request because,
`
`the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were
`
`presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)6 (emphasis added); Intelligent Bio-
`
`Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., Case IPR2013-00324, slip op. at 4–5
`
`(PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) (Paper 19). In considering whether to exercise its
`
`discretion, the Board should consider the interests of patent owners, who seek to
`
`avoid harassment and enjoy quiet title to their rights. See H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.
`
`1, at 48 (2011) (AIA proceedings “are not to be used as tools for harassment or a
`
`means to prevent market entry through repeated litigation and administrative
`
`
`6 Although this provision appears in Chapter 32 of the Patent Act, which is directed
`
`to post-grant reviews, by its terms it is applicable also to inter partes review
`
`proceedings under Chapter 31. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (“In determining whether to
`
`institute or order a proceeding under . . . chapter 31, the director may take into
`
`account . . .”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`attacks on the validity of a patent. Doing so would frustrate the purpose of the
`
`section as providing a quick and cost effective alternative to litigation.”). The
`
`burden is on the Petitioner to identify differences between references cited in
`
`previous petitions and the references cited in a new petition. See Schrader-
`
`Bridgeport Int’l v. Wasica Fin. Gmbh, Case IPR2015-00272, slip op. at 4–5
`
`(PTAB Jun. 1, 2015) (Paper 17).
`
`In determining whether prior art and arguments are “substantially the same”
`
`the Board evaluates whether the prior art or arguments will require a materially
`
`different analysis. UBE Maxwell Co., Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC, Case IPR2015-01511,
`
`slip op. at 9 (PTAB Jan. 7, 2016) (Paper 10) (“the only difference in argument
`
`indicated by [Petitioner] addresses an alleged deficiency in [the previously asserted
`
`art] that we did not consider to be a deficiency”). In particular, grounds based on
`
`obviousness arguments are substantially the same even when petitioner replaces
`
`one reference for another that discloses the allegedly missing feature. Unilever,
`
`Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00506, slip op. at 7 (PTAB July 7,
`
`2014) (Paper 17) (“In both petitions, Unilever advances ‘substantially the same’
`
`argument—namely, that claim 13 would have been obvious over Kanebo in view
`
`of other prior art disclosing ketoconazole.”)
`
`Arguments and prior art are also substantially the same when petitioners use
`
`prior Board decisions as a roadmap for buttressing their previous arguments.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Conopco, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case IPR2014-00506, slip op. at 4–5
`
`(PTAB Dec. 10, 2014) (Paper 25); see also UBE Maxwell, Case IPR2015-01511,
`
`slip op. at 11 (“Merely bolstering previously-made arguments that the Board found
`
`lacking does not change the argument sufficiently for us to consider the arguments
`
`not ‘substantially the same’ for the purposes of § 325(d).”). A later petition should
`
`be denied if it merely remedies deficiencies identified by the Board in prior
`
`decisions denying institution. Google, Inc. v. SimpleAir, Inc., Case CBM2014-
`
`00170, slip op. at 22–23 (PTAB Jan. 22, 2015) (Paper 13); see also ZTE Corp. v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc., Case IPR2013-00454, slip op. at 6 (PTAB Sep. 25,
`
`2013) (Paper 12).
`
`The prior art and arguments in the instant Petition are substantially the same
`
`as the prior art and arguments presented in an earlier petition. As discussed above,
`
`MTI filed multiple petitions including a petition in IPR2016-00094 (hereinafter
`
`“the ‘094 petition”) requesting inter partes review of claims 6–15 of the ‘441
`
`patent. (Ex. 1007 at 12.) Relevant to this Petition, Ground #2 of the ‘094 petition
`
`asserted that claims 6–15 of the ‘441 patent are invalid as obvious over U.S. Patent
`
`No. 5,270,975 to McAdams (hereinafter “McAdams”) in view of Japanese Patent
`
`Application No. H06-052696 to Minami (hereinafter “Minami”). (Id.) MTI argued
`
`that McAdams disclosed every limitation of claims 6, 7, 9, and 11–15, except for
`
`two aspects of claim 6. (Ex. 1007 at 48 (“What McAdams does not expressly
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`disclose is that the column decoder activates the first column selection line when
`
`the word line is activated.”), 52 (“What McAdams does not explicitly disclose is
`
`whether activating the column redundancy decoder occurs when a word line is
`
`activated.”).) MTI argued that Minami disclosed the missing limitations of claim 6,
`
`and limitations of dependent claims 8 and 10.
`
`For purposes of the Petition, Gallia is identical to McAdams. Every passage
`
`of Gallia cited in support of Petitioner’s grounds for invalidity appears in
`
`McAdams, along with drawing figures that are substantially identical.7 The
`
`disclosure in McAdams so thoroughly encompasses the disclosure in Gallia that
`
`the only substantively unique aspect of Gallia is the verbatim claim language and
`
`two paragraphs in Gallia’s “Summary of the Invention” section (Ex. 1006 at 3:6–
`
`21, 3:29–42, 13:31–14:65). In addition to the disclosures in Gallia, McAdams
`
`
`7 McAdams and Gallia include substantially overlapping disclosures, despite being
`
`unrelated in application family history and inventorship. The two patents are
`
`commonly owned and were filed at approximately the same time. Both McAdams
`
`and Gallia are assigned to Texas Instruments Incorporated. (Ex. 1006 at Assignee;
`
`Ex. 1008 at Assignee.) Gallia was filed on February 14, 1990 and issued on June
`
`30, 1992. (Ex. 1006.) McAdams claims priority to an abandoned application filed
`
`on March 29, 1990, shortly after Gallia was filed. (Ex. 1008.)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`includes additional drawing figures 8–10 and also includes additional written
`
`description at column 10, line 45 through column 18, line 20. McAdams also
`
`includes claims and three unique paragraphs in the “Summary of the Invention”
`
`section (Ex. 1008 at 3:8–19, 3:34–60).
`
`For reference, the following table cross-references each Gallia citation used
`
`by the Petition in support of a ground for invalidity along with the corresponding
`
`passage in McAdams:
`
`
`
`Ground #2: Claims 6, 7, 9,
`11, 12, 14, 15 Anticipated
`by Gallia
`Claim 6
`
`Petition
`Page No.
`
`Apple’s Cite to
`Gallia
`
`Matching Passage
`in McAdams
`
`
`
`
`
`51
`51
`51–52
`52
`53
`54
`55
`55
`55
`56
`56–57
`57
`58
`59
`59
`59
`
`1:5–8
`5:10–11
`4:59–67
`FIG. 3
`6:5–10
`FIG. 3
`4:67–5:1
`6:28–32
`FIG. 3
`5:10–20
`5:34–44
`FIG. 2
`FIG. 3
`6:5–11
`6:35–45
`FIG. 3
`
`
`
`1:9–12(8)
`5:39–40(8)
`5:19–38
`FIG. 3
`6:31–35
`FIG. 3
`5:27–30
`6:53–57(8)
`FIG. 3
`5:39–47
`5:60–6:2(8)
`FIG. 2
`FIG. 3
`6:31–37
`6:60–68
`FIG. 3
`
`
`8 Word-for-word identical to the passage cited by Apple in Gallia.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Claim 7
`Claim 9
`
`Claim 11
`Claim 12
`
`Claim 14
`Claim 15
`Ground #3: Claims 8 and
`10 Obvious Over Gallia +
`Horiguchi
`Claim 8
`Claim 10
`Motivation to Combine
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petition
`Page No.
`60
`60
`61
`61
`61
`63
`65
`65–66
`-
`68
`69
`69
`-
`-
`
`Apple’s Cite to
`Gallia
`5:17–20
`5:63–68
`5:56–66
`8:32–45
`10:36–39
`FIG. 3
`FIG. 3
`5:10–11
`-
`7:40–59
`FIG. 4
`FIG. 5
`-
`-
`
`
`
`-
`-
`76
`76
`76
`77
`
`
`
`-
`-
`7:24–39
`3:1–5
`3:30–42
`6:39–59
`
`Matching Passage
`in McAdams
`5:45–47(8)
`6:21–27(8)
`6:15–27(8)
`8:48–61(8)
`18:28–31(8)
`FIG. 3
`FIG. 3
`5:39–40(8)
`-
`7:57–8:7
`FIG. 4
`FIG. 5
`-
`-
`
`
`
`-
`-
`7:42–56(8)
`3:3–7(8)
`See 7:57–8:7, 8:29–
`61
`6:64–7:9
`
`As illustrated in the above table, every citation in the Petition could easily be
`
`replaced by a corresponding citation to McAdams. In all but one case, the
`
`Petition’s Gallia citations correspond directly to substantively identical passages in
`
`McAdams—many of which are word-for-word identical.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Like the ‘094 petition, which relied upon McAdams9 as a primary
`
`obviousness reference, the instant Petition points to the duplicative Gallia10 patent
`
`as anticipatory and as a primary obviousness reference. (Pet. at 39–52.) In contrast
`
`to the ‘094 petition, the instant Petition argues that all limitations of claim 6 are
`
`disclosed by Gallia, notwithstanding that Gallia does not differ substantially from
`
`the McAdams patent cited by MTI in the ‘094 petition. Like the ‘094 petition, the
`
`instant Petition asserts that claims 8 and 10 are invalid over a combination,
`
`replacing McAdams with the substantially identical Gallia as the base reference,
`
`and replacing Minami with Horiguchi to disclose the missing features. (Compare
`
`Ex. 1007 at 12; with Pet. at 4.) The new combination is therefore substantially the
`
`same as the combination asserted in the ‘094 petition. See Unilever, Inc., Case
`
`
`9 The ‘094 petition asserted in Ground #2 that claims 3 and 6–15 are invalid under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 over McAdams in view of Japanese Patent Application No. H06-
`
`052696. (Ex. 1007 at 12.) The ‘094 petition alleged that McAdams disclosed all
`
`but two limitations of claim 6, as discussed below. (Ex. 1007 at 48, 52.)
`
`10 The Petition asserts in Ground #2 that claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Gallia. (Pet. at 4.) The Petition further
`
`asserts in Ground #3 that claims 8 and 10 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
`
`view of Gallia and Horiguchi. (Id.)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`IPR2014-00506, slip op. at 7. To the extent the prior art and arguments in the
`
`Petition differ from the ‘094 petition, they attempt only to bolster MTI’s prior
`
`arguments in view of the Board’s decision on the ‘094 petition, which further
`
`evidences the substantial sameness of prior art and arguments in this Petition and
`
`the ‘094 petition. See Conopco, Case IPR2014-00506, slip op. at 4.
`
`Additional factors provide further support for denying the Petition at least in
`
`part. The Board has exercised its discretion to deny duplicative petitions based on a
`
`variety of extenuating factors, as discussed in UBE Maxwell, Case IPR2015-01511,
`
`slip op. at 12–14. Four months after the Board denied institution of claims 6–15
`
`based on the ‘094 petition, Apple filed the instant Petition with three asserted
`
`grounds of invalidity: first, that claims 6–12, 14, and 15 are anticipated under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(b) by Horiguchi; second that claims 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are
`
`anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by Gallia; and third, that claims 8 and 10 are
`
`obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Gallia and Horiguchi. (Pet. at 4.)
`
`The Petition acknowledges that “the relevant disclosure in Gallia overlaps
`
`with a portion of McAdams,” but argues that “these references are directed to
`
`different issues.” (Pet. at 80.) This ignores the fact that nearly every portion of
`
`McAdams cited in the ‘094 Petition is also available in Gallia—the Petition draws
`
`from the same parts of Gallia as MTI did (via McAdams) in the ‘094 petition. The
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`following cross-reference table illustrates the fact that MTI overwhelmingly cited
`
`passages in McAdams that are also available in Gallia.
`
`
`
`Ground #1: Claims 1–3, 5
`Anticipated by McAdams
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 2
`Claim 3
`
`Claim 5
`Ground #2: Claims 3, 6–
`15 Obvious Over
`McAdams + Minami
`Motivations to Combine
`
`Claim 6
`
`‘094 Petition
`Page No.11
`
`24
`25
`25
`25
`26
`26–27
`26–27
`27
`28
`29
`29
`29
`30
`31
`31, 32
`33
`
`MTI’s Cite to
`McAdams
`
`1:9–10
`FIG. 5
`FIG. 2
`5:39–47
`6:21–24
`7:57–59
`FIG. 4
`7:65–67
`8:48–61
`FIG. 4
`FIG. 5
`7:57–67
`8:2–7
`7:57–8:7
`8:44–61
`7:62–8:7
`
`
`
`35
`35
`36
`36
`40
`40
`
`
`
`3:3–7
`3:12–16
`6:27–30
`8:48–61
`1:9–10
`4:31–32
`
`Matching Passage
`in Gallia
`
`1:5–6(12)
`FIG. 5
`FIG. 2
`5:10–20
`5:63–66(12)
`7:40–42(12)
`FIG. 4
`7:48–50(12)
`8:32–45(12)
`FIG. 4
`FIG. 5
`7:40–50
`7:53–59(12)
`7:40–59
`8:28–45(12)
`7:46–59(12)
`
`
`
`3:1–5(12)
`See 10:35–39
`5:67–6:4(12)
`8:32–45(12)
`1:5–6(12)
`4:11–12(12)
`
`
`11 Page numbers correspond to Ex. 1007.
`
`12 Word-for-word identical to the passage cited in McAdams.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2016-01567: Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`
`Claim 7
`
`Claim 8
`Claim 9
`
`Claim 10
`Claim 11
`
`
`
`‘094 Petition
`Page No.11
`41
`41
`41
`42
`42
`42 n.5
`43
`43
`43
`43
`44
`45
`4