`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.,
`PETITIONERS
`
`v.
`
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC,
`PATENT OWNER
`___________
`
`Case IPR2017-00512
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`Title: VIDEO AND/OR AUDIO DECOMPRESSION AND/OR COMPRESSION DEVICE THAT
`SHARES A MEMORY INTERFACE
`____________
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.107
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
`II. STATE OF THE PRIOR ART & THE `789 PATENT ............................................. 2
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................... 5
`IV. PETITIONER DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM IS INVALID ..................................................................... 6
`A. Bowes, TMS, and Thomas [claims 1–5 and 12–14] ..................................... 6
`1. TMS does not disclose or render obvious “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.” ........................... 7
`2. Bowes does not disclose “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.” ............................................................ 7
`3. Bowes in combination with Thomas does not render obvious “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.” ........................................................................................................................ 8
`B. Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Gove [claims 6 and 8] .................................... 12
`C. Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Ran [claim 7] .................................................. 13
`D. Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Celi [claim 11] ................................................ 13
`V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`In re Fine,
` 837 F.2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ............................................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`In re Rambus Inc.,
` 694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................. 5
`
`In re Wilson,
` 424 F.2d 1382 (CCPA 1970) .................................................................................. 7
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................................. 6
`
`Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys., Inc.,
` Case IPR2015-00633 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) ........................................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789 (“`789 Patent”)1
`U.S. Patent No. 5,546,547 (“Bowes”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5, 001,625 (“Thomas”)
`Declaration of Mitchell A. Thornton (Thornton Decl.”) from
`IPR2016-01135
`Deposition testimony of Robert Colwell, Ph.D. dated February 27,
`2017 (“Colwell Depo.”) from IPR2016-01135
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`
`1001
`1005
`1007
`2003
`
`2004
`
`
`1 Ex. 1001, 1005, and 1007 are already of record and not attached to this
`Preliminary Response.
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`The patent owner Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC (“Patent
`
`Owner”) respectfully requests that the Board deny the Petition for Inter Partes
`
`review (“Petition”) filed by HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) regarding certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789 (“`789
`
`Patent”) because the Petition fails to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioner would prevail as to at least one of the challenged claims, as required
`
`under 34 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`The Petition proposes four grounds challenging claims 1–8 and 11–14
`
`(“challenged claims”). Specifically, the Petitioner contends that certain challenged
`
`claims are invalid as obvious in view of Bowes, TMS, and Thomas (Ground A).
`
`The Petitioner also contends that certain dependent challenged claims are obvious
`
`in view of Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Gove (Ground B) or Ran (Ground C) or Celi
`
`(Ground D).
`
`For the reasons discussed below, Bowes, TMS, and Thomas do not render
`
`claim 1 obvious. Because they depend on claim 1, claims 2–8 and 11–14 are
`
`allowable for at least the same reasons. Therefore, there is no reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to any of the claims
`
`challenged in Grounds A–D, and the Petition should be denied.
`
`1
`
`
`
`II. STATE OF THE PRIOR ART & THE `789 PATENT
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`The computer memory storage requirements of a digital representation of an
`
`uncompressed image is dependent on its resolution, color depth, and size in pixels.
`
`Video files are comprised of sequences of images that are further enhanced with a
`
`corresponding audio track to accompany them. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 29].
`
`As a result, a video file quickly becomes large in size. The transmission of
`
`uncompressed video files is prohibitively expensive. Id.
`
`Accordingly, video files are typically compressed at a transmitting device.
`
`[Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 30]. The compressed file is then transmitted to a
`
`receiving device where it is decompressed. Id. To that end, an encoder at the
`
`transmitter compresses the video file and a decoder decompresses the file received
`
`at the receiver in order to retrieve a facsimile of the original video and audio data.
`
`Id. In order to ensure compatibility between devices, a number of standards for
`
`encoding and decoding video files were developed. Id. One of those standards was
`
`developed by the Motion Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) and has been adopted
`
`as a standard for the communication of video. Id.
`
`If a decoder does not operate in real time, the decoded video being displayed
`
`would stop periodically between images until the decoder can access the memory
`
`and process the subsequent image frame. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 31].
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`Moreover, when using a temporal (intercompression) technique such as the MPEG
`
`Standard, some of the images are decoded based on previous images and some
`
`based on previous and subsequent images. Id. Accordingly, dropping an image on
`
`which the decoding of other images depends is unacceptable as it can result in poor
`
`or unrecognizable decoded images. Id. Therefore, it is typically the case that a
`
`decoder requires its own dedicated memory. Id. For instance, traditional MPEG
`
`decoders require a 2 Mbyte dedicated memory that is utilized during the decoding
`
`process. Id. This dedicated memory is necessary to allow the decoder to decode
`
`images in real-time without dropping frames that would result in a deterioration of
`
`the video quality at the receiver. Id.
`
`It is generally desirable to reduce the die area of an integrated circuit device
`
`for a given functionality. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 32]. Such a reduction
`
`allows for an increase in the number of the die that can be manufactured on a
`
`silicon wafer having a given size. Id. For example, a video decoder die would be
`
`reduced in size if it did not include a dedicated memory circuit. Id. Moreover, such
`
`a dedicated memory of a decoder may remain unused when an image is not being
`
`decoded which is inefficient. Id. Accordingly, it is desirable to permit the decoder
`
`to share the main memory of the system with other system components. Id.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`To that end, the `789 Patent is generally directed to sharing both a memory
`
`interface and a memory between a video and/or audio decoder and another device
`
`contained in an electronic system. [`789 Pat. [Ex. 1001], Abstract; 4:12-22; 4:30-
`
`34; 4:40-48; independent claim 1]. Accordingly, the electronic system includes a
`
`first device that requires access to the memory and a decoder that requires access
`
`to the memory sufficient to maintain real time operation. Id. at claim 1. A memory
`
`interface is coupled to the memory, the first device and the decoder. Id. The
`
`memory interface includes an arbiter for selectively providing access for the first
`
`device and the decoder to the memory. Id. A shared bus is coupled to the memory,
`
`the first device and the decoder. Id. The shared bus has sufficient bandwidth to
`
`enable the decoder to access the memory and operate in real time when the first
`
`device simultaneously accesses the shared bus. Id.
`
`A video decoder only requires access to memory during its operation. [Ex.
`
`2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 34]. In accordance with the implementation of the `789
`
`Patent, other devices such as a first device may have exclusive access to a shared
`
`memory when the decoder is not operating. Id. In such instances, the first device
`
`can use the entire bandwidth of the fast bus to support memory accesses. Id.
`
`The fast bus (70) of the `789 Patent has a bandwidth that is at least twice the
`
`required bandwidth to support the memory accesses needed to support real time
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`video decoding. [`789 Pat., 6:67-7:2]. Accordingly, the video decoder will
`
`typically be using less than 40% of the bandwidth of the fast bus (70) during
`
`decoding. [`789 Pat., 7:18-20]. This frees up the remaining bandwidth to be used
`
`by other devices such as a first device during the decoder operation. [`789 Pat.,
`
`7:20-22]. Because the decoder does not use the entire available bandwidth of the
`
`fast bus (70) during real time decoding, the remaining bus bandwidth may be used
`
`by other devices such as a first device simultaneously while real time decoding is
`
`occurring. [`789 Pat., 7:5-15].
`
`III. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b), “[a] claim in an unexpired patent shall be
`
`given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent
`
`in which it appears.” The `789 Patent is likely to expire before the Board is likely
`
`to issue a final written decision as to the patentability of the challenged claims.
`
`Therefore, the claim terms are to be construed in accordance with the standard set
`
`forth in Phillips.2 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b); see Toyota Motor Corp. v. Cellport Sys.,
`
`Inc., Case IPR2015-00633, slip op. at 8-10 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2015) (Paper 11); cf.
`
`In re Rambus Inc., 694 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“While claims are generally
`
`
`2 The construction of the terms and the analysis of the claims set forth herein
`would have remained the same even if the broadest reasonable interpretation
`standard was applied.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`given their broadest possible scope during prosecution, the Board’s review of the
`
`claims of an expired patent is similar to that of a district court’s review.”) (internal
`
`citation omitted). Under this standard, the claim terms are given their ordinary and
`
`accustomed meaning as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention in the context of the entire patent, considering intrinsic
`
`evidence (the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history), and extrinsic
`
`evidence (technical dictionaries, treatises, etc.) to a lesser extent. Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Petitioner proposes maintaining the Board’s construction in IPR2016-01135
`
`for the terms “decoder” and “encoder.” [Petition at 14–15.] Petitioner further
`
`proposes adopting the Board’s conclusion in IPR2016-01135 that the terms “real
`
`time” and “variable bandwidth” do not require a construction. [Id. at 15.] Patent
`
`Owner agrees that the Board’s conclusions regarding claim construction in
`
`IPR2016-01135 should apply to this proceeding.
`
`IV. PETITIONER DOES NOT ESTABLISH A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT
`ANY CHALLENGED CLAIM IS INVALID
`
`
`A. Bowes, TMS, and Thomas [claims 1–5 and 12–14]
`
`Independent claim 1 is not invalid as obvious in view of Bowes, TMS, and
`
`Thomas because Bowes, TMS, and Thomas, alone or in combination, fail to
`
`disclose “the bus having a sufficient bandwidth to enable the decoder to access the
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`memory and operate in real time when the first device simultaneously accesses the
`
`bus.” See, e.g., In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382 1385 (CCPA 1970) (“All words in a
`
`claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior
`
`art”).
`
`1. TMS does not disclose or render obvious “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.”
`
`Petitioner does not rely on TMS to disclose or render obvious the “when the
`
`first device simultaneously accesses the bus” portion of this limitation. [See
`
`Petition at 39–41.] Indeed, Dr. Thornton confirms that TMS does not disclose or
`
`render obvious this portion of the limitation. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 39.]
`
`Accordingly, TMS does not disclose or render obvious this portion of the
`
`limitation.
`
`2. Bowes does not disclose “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.”
`
`It is unclear whether Petitioner argues that Bowes discloses the “when the
`
`first device simultaneously accesses the bus” portion of this limitation. [See
`
`Petition at 40.] In any event, Bowes does not disclose this portion of the
`
`limitation. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 40.] Bowes never discloses the CPU
`
`using the bus at the same time that the DSP is performing real-time decoding.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`Indeed, Petitioner has not provided any analysis to support a conclusion that
`
`Bowes discloses this portion of the limitation. [See Petition at 40.]
`
`3. Bowes in combination with Thomas does not render obvious
`“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.”
`
`Petitioner argues that Bowes in combination with Thomas renders the “when
`
`the first device simultaneously accesses the bus” portion of this limitation obvious.
`
`[See Petition at 40–41.] This is incorrect. A POSA would not be motivated to
`
`combine Bowes with Thomas for the reasons described below. [Ex. 2003,
`
`Thornton Decl. at ¶ 41].
`
`The DSP of Bowes requires an extraordinarily large amount of bus
`
`bandwidth. [See Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 42; Ex. 1005 at 1:51–53 (“[A] DSP
`
`requires a large amount of bandwidth to memory for processing the sheer volume
`
`of data required to effectuate real-time computing.”); 2:25–26 (“the high
`
`bandwidth required for real-time processing by a DSP”); 3:21–23 (“The arbitration
`
`scheme is tuned to maximize accessibility of the memory bus to the DSP which
`
`has by far the greatest bandwidth requirements.”); 6:35–38 (“Many of these
`
`functions are real-time operation and require a tremendous amount of the memory
`
`bus bandwidth between the DSP and the DRAM of the main memory subsystem
`
`14.”); 7:31–32 (“In addition to the DSP’s huge requirement for bandwidth on the
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`memory bus . . . .”)] As a result, the Bowes system is “optimized” to support the
`
`DSP and make sure that it has the bus bandwidth it needs to perform real-time
`
`operations. [See Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 42; Ex. 1005 at 8:40–42 (“Because
`
`the DSP has the largest bus bandwidth requirement, the system is optimized to
`
`meet its need and support its real-time operations.”)]
`
`Combining Bowes with Thomas to meet this limitation would not support
`
`the DSP’s real-time operations because the combined system would effectively
`
`halve the bus bandwidth available to the DSP. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 43].
`
`To meet this limitation, the DSP in a combined Bowes/Thomas system must be
`
`able to use the bus to operate in real-time while the CPU is using the bus at the
`
`same time. [Id.] Given the teachings of Thomas, this means that the DSP and
`
`CPU will each be using, at most, only half of the available bus bandwidth. [Id.]
`
`For example, Thomas teaches bus units that request “system bus access to perform
`
`a full bus transfer or a half bus transfer.” [Ex. 1007 at 15:43–44.] The
`
`“simultaneous data return” described by Thomas occurs only when the cache
`
`memory requests a half bus transfer (as opposed to a full bus transfer), which
`
`allows the main memory to use the other half of the bus. [See Ex. 2003, Thornton
`
`Decl. at ¶ 43; Ex. 1007 at 15:50–16:2.] Therefore, the DSP in a combined
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`Bowes/Thomas system will be limited to half the bandwidth that it would
`
`otherwise have in the original Bowes system. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 43].
`
`Petitioner’s expert agrees with this analysis of Thomas. For example, Dr.
`
`Colwell agrees that Thomas’ bus can support simultaneous bus transactions only
`
`when both of the transactions are half bus transfers:
`
`[Ex. 2004, Colwell Depo. at 17:2–6.] Dr. Colwell further agrees that the bus units
`
`in Thomas can use, at most, only half of the peak bus bandwidth when engaged in
`
`a simultaneous bus transaction:
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`[Ex. 2004, Colwell Depo. at 15:3–21.]
`
`A POSA would not be motivated to reduce the Bowes DSP’s available bus
`
`bandwidth by 50% (or more) when the DSP requires a “tremendous” amount of
`
`bandwidth, especially when the entire system should be optimized to guarantee
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`that the DSP has sufficient bandwidth. [Ex. 2003, Thornton Decl. at ¶ 45].
`
`Combining Bowes with Thomas would not support the DSP’s real-time operations;
`
`it would achieve the exact opposite result. [Id.] Accordingly, a POSA would not
`
`be motivated to combine Bowes with Thomas. [Id.]
`
`At least for these reasons, independent claim 1 is not invalid as obvious in
`
`view of Bowes, TMS, and Thomas. Claims 2–5 and 12–14 depend on independent
`
`claim 1 and are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons. In re Fine, 837
`
`F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under § 103
`
`if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”).
`
`B. Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Gove [claims 6 and 8]
`
`The Petition alleges that claims 6 and 8 are obvious in view of Bowes, TMS.
`
`Thomas, and Gove. Claims 6 and 8 depend on independent claim 1. As discussed
`
`in Section IV.A., supra, claim 1 is not invalid as obvious in view of Bowes, TMS,
`
`and Thomas. The Petition relies on Gove only for its alleged disclosure of certain
`
`limitations in claims 6 and 8. [Petition at 54–56.] Therefore, independent claim 1
`
`is also not obvious in view of the proposed combination of Bowes, TMS, Thomas,
`
`and Gove. Dependent claims 6 and 8 are allowable at least for the same reasons.
`
`In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`nonobvious under § 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
`
`nonobvious”).
`
`C. Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Ran [claim 7]
`
`The Petition alleges that claim 7 is obvious in view of Bowes, TMS,
`
`Thomas, and Ran. Claim 7 depends on independent claim 1. As discussed in
`
`Section IV.A., supra, claim 1 is not invalid as obvious in view of Bowes, TMS,
`
`and Thomas. The Petition relies on Ran only for its alleged disclosure of certain
`
`limitations in claim 7. [Petition at 56–59.] Therefore, independent claim 1 is also
`
`not obvious in view of the proposed combination of Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and
`
`Ran. Dependent claim 7 is allowable at least for the same reasons. In re Fine, 837
`
`F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under § 103
`
`if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”).
`
`D. Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and Celi [claim 11]
`
`The Petition alleges that claim 11 is obvious in view of Bowes, TMS,
`
`Thomas, and Celi. Claim 11 depends on independent claim 1. As discussed in
`
`Section IV.A., supra, claim 1 is not invalid as obvious in view of Bowes, TMS,
`
`and Thomas. The Petition relies on Celi only for its alleged disclosure of certain
`
`limitations in claim 11. [Petition at 59–66.] Therefore, independent claim 1 is also
`
`not obvious in view of the proposed combination of Bowes, TMS, Thomas, and
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`Celi. Dependent claim 11 is allowable at least for the same reasons. In re Fine,
`
`837 F.2d 1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under §
`
`103 if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that the
`
`Petitioner has not made the threshold showing that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that it will prevail in demonstrating the invalidity of at least one challenged claim.
`
`Therefore, the Patent Owner requests that the Petition be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Masood Anjom
`Masood Anjom, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 62,167
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Parthenon Unified Memory
`Architecture, LLC
`
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI &MENSING, P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: 713-655-1101
`
`Dated: April 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-00512
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`U.S. Patent No. 5,812,789
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.107 was served on this Friday, April 21, 2017 by electronic mail to the
`following:
`Lead Counsel for HTC Corp. and HTC
`America, Inc.
`Joseph A. Micallef, Reg. No. 39,772
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Email: jmicallef@sidley.com
`
`Back-up Counsel for HTC Corp. and HTC
`America, Inc.
`Stephen M. Everett
`Registration No. 30,050
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street
`Suite 200
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`stephen.everett@sidley.com
`
`Samuel A. Dillon
`Registration No. 65,197
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1501 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 2005
`samuel.dillon@sidley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Masood Anjom
`
`Masood Anjom, Lead Counsel
`
`Reg. No. 62,167
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Parthenon Unified Memory
`Architecture, LLC
`
`AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS,
`ALAVI &MENSING, P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
`Houston, TX 77010
`Telephone: 713-655-1101
`
`