`Trials@uspto.gov
`571.272.7822 Filed: March 7, 2019
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`HP INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`JAMES B. GOODMAN,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`____________
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`In this inter partes review, instituted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314,
`HP Inc. (“Petitioner”) challenges the patentability of claims 1, 5, 10, and 16
`(“the challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 6,243,315 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’315 patent”), owned by James B. Goodman (“Patent Owner”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written
`Decision, issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73,
`addresses issues and arguments raised during trial. For the reasons
`discussed below, we determine that Petitioner has shown by a preponderance
`of the evidence that claims 10 and 16 of the ’315 patent are unpatentable, but
`has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1 and 5 of the
`’315 patent are unpatentable.
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`On August 24, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition requesting an inter
`partes review of claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 of the ’315 patent (Paper 2, “Pet.”),
`supported by the declaration testimony of Dr. Nader Bagherzadeh
`(Ex. 1002). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 5 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). On March 8, 2018, we instituted an inter partes review of the
`challenged claims. Paper 6 (“Decision on Institution” or “Dec. on Inst.”).
`On June 1, 2018, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner Response (Paper 8) and
`later in the day, filed a second Patent Owner Response (Paper 9, “PO
`Resp.”). We refer herein to the second filed Patent Owner Response (Paper
`9). 1 On August 24, 2018, Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 10, “Reply”).
`
`
`1 Petitioner has not objected to our consideration of the second-filed
`Response.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`A hearing was held on November 16, 2018. A transcript of the hearing
`has been entered into the record. Paper 15 (“Tr.”).
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The parties identify the following litigations as related proceedings:
`Goodman v. Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. No. 16-CV-03195 (S.D. Tex.);
`Goodman v. ASUS Computer International, C.A. No. 17-CV-05542 (N.D.
`Cal.) (transferred from the S.D. Tex.); Goodman v. Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., C.A. No. 17-CV-05539 (S.D.N.Y.); and Goodman v. Lenovo
`(United States) Inc., C.A. 17-CV-06782 (N.D. Cal.). Pet. 2; Paper 4 ¶ 2;
`Paper 4, 1.
`In addition, we note that the ’315 patent is also the subject of current
`petitions for inter partes review by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(IPR2017-02021) and by ASUS Computer International Inc. (IPR2018-
`000472).
`
`C. The ’315 patent
`
`The ’315 patent is directed to memory systems having volatile solid
`state memory devices that retain information when an electrical power
`source is applied but lose their memory contents when power is removed.
`Ex. 1001, 2:54–58, 3:46–52. To reduce energy consumption and preserve
`memory contents, volatile memory devices are placed in low power
`“self-refresh mode” when the memory system is not receiving requests for
`access. See id. at 3:46–54 (stating the “low power mode utilizes
`
`
`2 Case IPR2018-00047 has been joined with IPR2017-02021.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`significantly less electrical current than when the memory device is in the
`operating mode or powered up mode”), id. at 3:25–30 (stating “placing the
`memory devices into a power down self-refresh mode . . . will maintain the
`data using a minimum of electrical power”). The memory system of the
`’315 patent has a control device interposed electrically between the memory
`devices and a central processing unit (“CPU”). Id. at 3:54–56. The control
`device senses CPU access of the memory devices and conditions the
`memory devices to an operating mode condition prior to allowing access to
`the information contained therein. Id. at 3:56–59. The control device also
`places the solid state memory devices into a low power standby mode when
`it “senses the termination of a memory cycle.” Id. at 3:59–62.
`Figure 1 of the ’315 patent, reproduced below, illustrates a preferred
`embodiment in which address and control busses are electrically isolated
`from the memory devices when the memory devices are in a power down
`self-refresh mode. Id. at 5:60–63.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`
`
`
`As shown in Figure 1 of the ’315 patent above, control device 15 is
`interdisposed between address bus3 17 and address bus 20 (id. at 5:50–52) as
`well as between control bus 22 and control bus 24 (id. at 5:54–56). Control
`device 15 isolates address bus 17 and control bus 22 from memory devices 5
`when the memory devices are in a power down self-refresh mode. Id. at
`5:60–63. By isolating the memory devices from control bus 22 and address
`bus 17, control device 15 prevents errant signals from erroneously changing
`
`
`3 The Decision uses the conventional spelling “bus” as opposed to “buss” as
`used in the ’315 patent.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`or affecting the data being retained by memory devices 5. Id. at 5:63–67.
`Figure 1 also shows RAS control lines 26 and WE control lines 28,
`which are connected to memory access control device 30. Id. at 6:1–3.
`Memory access enable control device 30 receives signals from the CPU
`indicating that a memory access is pending. Id. at 6:3–5. Memory access
`enable control device 30 then signals control device 15 to bring memory
`devices 5 up to a normal operating mode. Id. at 5:56–59, 6:5–8. Memory
`access enable control device can also signal control device 15 to indicate
`when memory devices 5 are to be placed in a power down mode. Id. at
`5:56–59.
`Another preferred embodiment of the ’315 patent is shown in the
`block diagram of Figure 4, reproduced below. Id. at 4:41–42.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`Figure 4 of the ’315 patent, shown above, is a block diagram of a preferred
`embodiment of the invention that switches the voltage source from the
`system electrical source input on line 140 to battery 146 when the input
`voltage level is less than a fixed amount and electrically isolates address and
`control lines. Id. at 9:41–46. As shown in Figure 4, control device 115 is
`interdisposed between address bus 117 and address bus 120 (id. at 9:16–20)
`and between control bus 122 and control bus 124 (id. at 9:20–23). Figure 4
`“also shows RAS, row address select lines, 126 and WE, write enable, 128
`lines connected to” control device 115. Id. at 9:24–26. Control device 115
`compares the input voltage on line 140 against a fixed reference voltage;
`when the input voltage level is less than the fixed reference voltage, the
`output electrical voltage source is switched from the system electrical source
`input on line 140 to battery 146. Id. at 9:41–43. Control device 115 then
`electrically isolates the “memory devices 105 from . . . control lines 122 and
`address lines 117” to prevent errant signals. Id. at 9:43–47.
`
`D. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the claims challenged by Petitioner, only claims 1 and 10 are
`
`independent and are reproduced below. 4
`
`1. [a] A memory system for use in a computer system, said
`memory system comprising:
`[b] a plurality of volatile solid state memory devices that
`retain information when an electrical power source is
`applied to said memory devices within a predetermined
`voltage range
`
`
`4 Paragraph breaks and bracketed letters have been added for ease of
`reference and for consistency with nomenclature utilized by Petitioner.
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`[c] and capable of being placed in a self refresh mode;
`[d] said memory devices having address lines and control
`lines;
`[e] a control device for selectively electrically isolating
`said memory devices from respective address lines and
`respective control lines so that when said memory devices
`are electrically isolated, any signals received on said
`respective address lines and respective control lines do not
`reach said memory devices; and
`[f] a memory access enable control device coupled to said
`control device and to said control lines for determining
`when said memory system is not being accessed and for
`initiating a low power mode for said memory system
`[g] wherein said control device electrically isolates said
`memory devices and places said memory devices in said
`self refresh mode, thereby reducing the amount of
`electrical energy being drawn from an electrical power
`supply for said computer system.
`Id. at 13:18–40.
`10. [a] A memory system for use in a computer system, said
`memory system comprising:
`[b] a plurality of volatile solid state memory devices that
`retain information when an electrical power source having
`a voltage greater than a predetermined voltage is applied
`to said devices;
`[c] said memory devices having address lines and control
`lines;
`[d] said computer system including a first electrical power
`source for operating said computer and being capable of
`producing a first voltage applied to said memory devices;
`[e] a control device for monitoring said first voltage to
`determine when said first voltage is less than said
`predetermined voltage and for selectively electrically
`isolating said memory devices from respective address
`lines and respective control lines so that when said
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals
`received on said respective address lines and respective
`control lines do not reach said memory devices; and
`[f] a second electrical power source operable for supplying
`a second voltage to said memory devices greater than said
`predetermined voltage;
`[g] said control device being operable for disconnecting
`said first electrical power source from said memory
`devices and connecting said second electrical power
`source to said memory devices when said first voltage is
`less than said predetermined voltage;
`[h] whereby, data in said memory devices is preserved by
`said second electrical power source when said first
`electrical power source fails to maintain at least said
`predetermined voltage on said memory devices, and said
`memory devices are isolated from errant signals.
`Id. at 13:65–14:32.
`
`E. Instituted Grounds
`
`We instituted an inter partes review of claims 1, 5, 10, and 16 on all
`grounds of unpatentability set forth in the Petition, as summarized in the
`table below.
`References
`Schaefer5 and Qureshi6
`Schaefer, Qureshi, and
`Mazur7
`
`Basis
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`Challenged Claims
`1 and 5
`10 and 16
`
`
`
`
`5 U.S. Patent No. 5,600,605 (issued Feb. 4, 1997) (Ex. 1003, “Schaefer”)
`6 U.S. Patent No. 5,793,776 (issued Aug. 11, 1998) (Ex. 1004, “Qureshi”)
`7 U.S. Patent No. 5,204,840 (issued Apr. 20, 1993) (Ex. 1005, “Mazur”)
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`In determining whether an invention would have been obvious at the
`time it was made, we consider the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`at the time of the invention. Graham v. John Deere Co, 383 U.S. 1, 17
`(1966). Petitioner contends a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
`the alleged invention of the ’315 patent (a “POSITA”) would have had at
`least a bachelor’s degree in electrical, electronics, or computer engineering,
`or the equivalent training or experience in electrical, electronics, or
`computer engineering, or a related discipline, and would have had
`approximately 2 to 3 years of experience in computer systems, circuits,
`electronics, or a related discipline. Pet. 16. Petitioner’s declarant, Dr.
`Bagherzadeh, generally agrees with this proposed level of ordinary skill in
`the art, but states that a POSITA would have had two or more years of
`experience in computer hardware, including the use of computer memory,
`and that the two or more years of experience would provide practical
`experience required to address issues such as low power backup for volatile
`memories. Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32.
`Patent Owner does not contest Petitioner’s description of the level of
`ordinary skill in its Response. See PO Resp. 8. Based on our review of the
`’315 patent, the cited prior art, and Dr. Bagherzadeh’s testimony, we
`determine a specific finding regarding ordinary skill level is not required as
`the prior art reflects an appropriate level. However, to the extent a specific
`finding regarding the level of skill is required, we adopt Dr. Bagherzadeh’s
`description of a POSITA as it is consistent with the teachings of the prior art.
`Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 31–32.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`B. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review filed before November 13, 2018, we
`construe claim terms in an unexpired patent according to their broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b)(2017); Changes to the Claim
`Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Before
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018)
`(amending 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) effective November 13, 2018) (to be
`codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42). Consistent with the broadest reasonable
`construction, claim terms are presumed to have their ordinary and customary
`meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in the context
`of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`Prior to Institution, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner identified any
`claim terms as warranting explicit construction. See Pet. 10; see generally
`Prelim. Resp. In its Preliminary Response, however, Patent Owner argued
`that the ’315 patent requires that “all address and control lines are
`electrically isolated from the DRAM in the self refresh mode to avoid erratic
`signals from damaging or otherwise corrupting the data in the memory.”
`Prelim. Resp. 2 (emphasis added). Patent Owner argued because the cited
`art keeps one particular control line (i.e., control line CKE) active and
`connected to the memory devices during the self-refresh mode, the cited art
`does not teach electrically isolating all address and control lines. See id.
`at 8.
`
`Our Decision on Institution states that we were not persuaded by
`Patent Owner’s argument because we did not understand the claims to
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`require electrically isolating memory devices from all address and control
`lines. Dec. on Inst. 13. We explained that the ’315 patent identifies a
`number of address and control lines but only discusses electrically isolating
`certain of those address and control lines. Id. at 13–14. Specifically, we
`identified the embodiment of Figure 1, which the ’315 patent describes as
`electrically isolating lines on control bus 22 and address bus 17 but does not
`describe as electrically isolating RAS and WE control lines 26 or 28. Id.
`We also identified the embodiment of Figure 4, which the ’315 patent
`describes as electrically isolating control lines 122 and address lines 117 but
`does not describe as electrically isolating RAS and WE control lines 126 or
`128. Id.
`In its Response, Patent Owner again argues that “the phrase
`‘selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from respective
`address lines and respective control lines’ must include all address and
`control signal lines.” PO Resp. 12 (emphasis added); see generally id. at 8–
`12 (citing Ex. 2001, 2). But Patent Owner clarifies in its Response, filed
`after institution, that the term all does not refer to address and control lines
`in general, but rather, refers to the address and control lines that
`communicate with the memory devices (i.e., “the respective address lines
`and the respective control lines”). Id. at 3; see also id. at 9–10. Specifically,
`Patent Owner contends that the:
`only address and control lines which would need to be
`electrically isolated are the address and control lines which
`communicate to the memory devices because only those address
`and control lines could introduce errant signals which might
`adversely change data in the memory devices. Thus, the term
`“all” is referring to the class of address and control lines which
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`communicate with the memory devices, not address and control
`lines in general.
`
` Id. at 9–10.
`To support its claim construction, Patent Owner points to Figure 1 of
`the ’315 patent. Patent Owner asserts RAS control line 26 and WE control
`line 28 of Figure 1 do not communicate with memory device 5 and,
`therefore “need not be electrically isolated from memory device 5 to protect
`the memory devices from any errant signals that might be on RAS and WE
`control lines, 26, 28.” Id. at 10. Patent Owner also asserts “Fig. 1 shows
`that the RAS and WE control lines 26, 28 must pass through control device
`15 to reach the memory devices 5. Thus, control device 15 can also isolate
`. . . RAS 26 and WE 28 control lines consistent within the requirements of
`the ’315 Patent, particularly the claims 1–9.” Id. at 19.
`In addition, Patent Owner argues that the parties and the District Court
`in the Goodman v. Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. No. 16-CV-3195 (S.D. Tex.),
`adopted its proposed construction. Id. at 12 (stating “[a]ccordingly, the
`phrase ‘selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from
`respective address lines and respective control lines’ must include all
`address and control signal lines according to the address and control lines as
`construed by the parties and the District Court”).
`Petitioner replies that the ’315 patent does not disclose electrically
`isolating all address and control lines. Reply 4–5. Petitioner states the RAS
`and WE control lines of Figure 1 “are not included in control lines that make
`up ‘control buss 22’” and that the RAS and WE control lines of Figure 4
`“are not part of ‘control buss 122.’” Reply 4–5 (citing Ex. 1001, 5:54–6:3,
`9:7–26). Petitioner states that because Figure 1 identifies RAS and WE as
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`control lines, when Address & Control Center 15 electrically isolates control
`bus 22, there are at least two other control lines that are not electrically
`isolated. Id. at 4. Petitioner also states that RAS and WE of Figure 4 are not
`part of control bus 122, confirming that the claims do not require electrically
`isolating all address and control lines. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 9:7–26).
`Petitioner also argues Patent Owner’s proposed construction is
`narrower than that to which the parties agreed, and the District Court
`applied, because the agreed upon construction in the District Court did not
`include the word “all.” Reply 3 (identifying the District Court construction
`as “inhibiting signals on respective address and respective control lines from
`the memory devices such that signals on those lines do not arrive at the
`memory device”).
`Based upon the full record, we agree with Patent Owner and
`determine the broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
`specification of a control device “for selectively electrically isolating said
`memory devices from respective address lines and respective control lines so
`that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received
`on said respective address lines and respective control lines do not reach said
`memory devices” as recited in independent claims 1 and 10, requires that the
`control device electrically isolate the memory devices from all address and
`control lines that communicate with the memory devices.
`The plain language of the claims requires that the selected memory
`devices are electrically isolated from their respective address and control
`lines. Ex. 1001, 13:26–28, 14:11–18. In accordance with the plain and
`ordinary meaning, the reference in claim 1 to “respective address lines” and
`“respective control lines” is inclusive of all such lines for the selected
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`memory device. We further find that a claim construction limited to
`isolating all of a selected memory device’s address and control lines is
`consistent with the purpose of such isolation expressed in claims 1 and 10,
`i.e. “so that when said memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals
`received on said respective address lines and said respective control lines do
`not reach said memory devices.” Id. at 13:27–30, 14:15–18 (emphasis
`added).
`Our construction is also consistent with the specification of the ’315
`patent, which explains that the invention prevents “errant control and
`address signals to the memory devices” by “electrically isolating the
`memory devices from signals received on the control lines and address
`lines.” Id. at 3:15–24. The ’315 patent states that when the memory devices
`are electrically isolated from the respective address lines and respective
`control lines, “any signals received on said respective address lines and
`respective control lines do not reach the memory devices.” Id. at 4:16–24;
`see also id. at 3:25–30 (stating the “memory system maintains the integrity
`of the data retained by the memory devices by isolating the devices from the
`external power source, control lines and address lines”).
`Based upon a review of the full record, we also find that the
`’315 patent does not teach address or control lines that communicate with
`memory devices but are not electrically isolated from the memory devices.
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument in its Response that the RAS
`and WE control lines 26, 28 of Figure 1 do not need to be electrically
`isolated from the memory devices because these lines connect to memory
`access enable control device 30 and therefore do not communicate with the
`memory devices. PO Resp. 10–11. The ’315 patent states that RAS and WE
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`control lines 26, 28 are connected to memory access enable control device
`30. Ex. 1001, 6:1–3. There is no express teaching that RAS control line 26
`and WE control line 28 communicate with memory device 5. As such, there
`is no teaching in the ’315 patent that memory devices 5 would need to be
`electrically isolated from RAS and WE control lines 26, 28 to prevent errant
`signals on these control lines from reaching the memory devices. Similarly,
`the ’315 patent states that RAS and WE control lines 126 and 128 of Figure
`4 are “connected to the control device” but does not state that the RAS and
`WE control lines communicate with memory devices. Id. at 9:24–26.
`Rather, the ’315 patent states that the outputs from the control device are
`address lines 120 and control lines 124 and that these outputs are inputs to
`the memory devices. Id. at 9:33–36. There is no disclosure in the ’315
`patent that the RAS and WE control lines are inputs to the memory devices.
`As such, there is no teaching in the ’315 patent that memory devices 5 would
`need to be electrically isolated from RAS and WE control lines 26, 28 to
`prevent errant signals on these control lines from reaching the memory
`devices.
`We also disagree with Petitioner’s argument that Patent Owner’s
`proposed construction is narrower than that applied in the District Court
`because the agreed upon construction in the District Court did not include
`the word “all.” Reply 3 (identifying the District Court construction as
`“inhibiting signals on respective address and respective control lines from
`the memory devices such that signals on those lines do not arrive at the
`memory device”). To focus on the presence or absence of the word “all” is
`too superficial because other language in the district-court construction has
`the same effect. That is, the language “inhibiting signals on respective
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`address and respective control lines” (emphasis added) includes all the
`address and control lines on the selected memory device. The District
`Court’s construction does not provide for inhibiting the signals on selected
`address and control lines of respective memories—it requires inhibiting
`signals on respective address and control lines of the selected memories.
`Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we construe a control device “for
`selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from respective
`address lines and respective control lines so that when said memory devices
`are electrically isolated, any signals received on said respective address lines
`and respective control lines do not reach said memory devices” as meaning
`that the control device electrically isolates the memory devices from all
`address and control lines that communicate with the memory devices.
`We determine that no further claim construction is required to resolve
`the issues in dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v.
`Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that
`only claims in controversy need to be construed and only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy).
`
`C. Principles of Law
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations8. See Graham, 383 U.S. at 17–18.
`Additionally, the obviousness inquiry typically requires an analysis of
`“whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
`the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (citing In
`re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (requiring “articulated
`reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
`obviousness”)).
`To prevail on its challenges, Petitioner must demonstrate by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the claims are unpatentable. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d). “In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has
`the burden from the onset to show with particularity why the patent it
`challenges is unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d
`1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter
`partes review petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that
`supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). This burden never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC. v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
`burden of proof in inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner does not
`
`
`8 The parties have not provided any evidence or argument directed to
`secondary considerations, and therefore, secondary considerations do not
`constitute part of our analysis.
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements,” but “must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on
`evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`D. Overview of the Asserted Art
`
`1. Schaefer (Ex. 1003)
`Schaefer describes a volatile memory device, such as a synchronous
`dynamic random access memory (“SDRAM”), “for storing data and
`responsive to command signals.” Ex. 1003, 1:57–60, 2:33–35. Schaefer’s
`SDRAM has memory arrays (i.e., bank 0 memory array 22 and bank 1
`memory array 24) that comprise storage cells for storing data. Id. at 3:9–11.
`Command controller 28 controls the various circuitry for the SDRAM based
`on decoded commands, such as during controlled reads or writes from or to
`bank 0 memory array 22 and bank 1 memory array 24. Id. at 3:36–39. The
`SDRAM also has address lines A0–A10, control lines WE*, CAS*, and
`RAS*. See id. at 3:26–35, 3:43–45. Schaefer’s SDRAM has a self-refresh
`mode. Id. at 3:21–25. “All the input and output signals of SDRAM, with
`the exception of the CKE input signal during power down and self refresh
`modes, are synchronized to the active going edge . . . of the CLK signal.”
`Id. at 3:20–25 “A system clock (CLK) signal is provided through a CLK
`input pin and a clock enable signal (CKE) is provided through a CKE input
`pin to SDRAM 20. The CLK signal is activated and deactivated based on
`the state of the CKE signal.” Id. at 3:16–20.
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`2. Qureshi (Ex. 1004)
`Qureshi is directed to, inter alia, a Joint Test Action Group (“JTAG”)
`test logic and memory controller for SDRAM chips, used for the in situ
`testing of integrated circuit chips mounted on a circuit board. Ex. 1004,
`1:27–29. During JTAG testing of the chips, memory, such as SDRAMs, is
`put into a self-refresh mode. Id. at 1:63–65. “Self refresh is a refresh mode
`available in some memory and is preferred for data retention and low power
`operation.” Id. at 1:65–67. For an SDRAM in self-refresh mode, the
`SDRAM disables the system clock and all input buffers except CKE (clock
`enable). Id. at 1:65–2:2; see also id. at 5:49–51 (stating that “[o]nce the self
`refresh mode is entered, SDRAM 116 ignores all inputs other than a CKE
`(clock enable) pin while in self refresh state”). Qureshi states that the
`system has the “ability to dynamically enter and exit SDRAM self refresh
`before and after [JTAG] testing,” which saves debugging time. Id. at 2:54–
`56.
`
`3. Mazur (Ex. 1005)
` Mazur teaches a process “for preserving the RAM of an externally
`powered microprocessor on the occasion of a loss in external power.”
`Ex. 1005, [57]. According to Mazur, “[w]hen the power loss is detected, a
`signal is generated which initiates a sequence to isolate the RAM and refresh
`it with an independent power supply,” e.g., a rechargeable battery. Id.; see
`also id. at 2:8–11 (stating the “hardware comprises in coactive combination
`a power loss detection circuit, an independent power supply, a continuously
`rechargeable battery, . . . a standby refresh circuit, a switch-over circuit).
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01994
`Patent 6,243,315 B1
`
`
`E. Asserted Obviousness of Claims 1 and 5 over Schaefer and Qureshi
`Petitioner contends that independent claim 1 and dependent claim 5
`are unpatentable under § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Schaefer
`and Qureshi. Pet. 3, 23–31, 39–44, 50. Patent Owner opposes. PO Resp.
`15–21. Having considered the parties’ contentions and supporting evidence,
`we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1 and 5 are unpatentable under § 103 over Schaefer and
`Qureshi.
`Our analysis focuses on claim element 1[e], which requires a control
`device “for selectively electrically isolating said memory devices from
`respective address lines and respective control lines so that when said
`memory devices are electrically isolated, any signals received on said
`respective address lines and respective control lines do not reach said
`memory devices.” As noted above in Section II.B, we construe claim
`element 1[e] as requiring that the control device electrically isolate th